Gollum and Eagles: Deux ex machina?

[Elu Ancalime]

I could not find another thread primarily about this.

A deux ex machina is usualy a person that comes unlooked for at the end of a literary work, that solves the problem and ends the conflict. Many times, the deux ex machina is an allegorical figure representing the Abrhamic God, or some other supernatural being. Wikipedia offers:The term Deus ex machina (DAY-oos ex MAH-kee-nuh) literally means "the god comes from a crane" and refers to an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot. The phrase has been extended to refer to 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; allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, but more palatable ending. In modern terms the Deus ex machina has also come to describe a person or thing that suddenly arrives and solves a seemingly insoluble difficulty. While in storytelling this might seem unfulfilling, in real life this type of figure might be welcome and heroic.

In the Lord of the Flies by William Golding, the Deux ex mahina is a Naval officer who shows up on the last page and a half of the book; his arrival solves the conflict between good and evil, for the boys that were stranded stop fighting amongst each other and have a emotional breakdown at the sight of their rescue.

In the Return of the King, Gollum might be considored a deux ex machina. He appears at the end of the Chapter 'Mount Doom', and solves the conflict by bringing the Ring to its end and succeeding where Frodo failed (even though it be moments afterwards). He does fit the standard that he comes when he should not be expected, and it is generally viewed as the climax. However, a deux ex machina is (by general) not shown until the very end of the book. Gollum may have ened the main problem, but then there is falling action, namely 'The Scouring of the Shire', which Gollum does not fix. Also, Gollum is not exactly 'complteley new to the plot.' Granted, I thought he was either dead or perhaps taken prisoner at Barad-dur. The notion of him coming back and jumping in so quickly is not looked for though.
Also, the Eagles are sometimes presented as a deux ex machina. I thought that Frodo and Sam would pass away in exhaustion. (BTW this is where the question about the Eagles taking the Ringbearer directly to Mordor comes in) But, the Ealges dont nessecarily end the conflict and problem. No offense to Frodo Im sure, but sending him to Orodruin and coming back wasnt the problem. The RIng needed to be destroyed and Sauron destroyed.

What do you think?
________
Mazda S Platform Picture (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_S_platform)

[Lalwendë]

Good question!

I wouldn't say Gollum fulfilled those criteria. In fact I think his reappearance at Mount Doom is integral to the whole story; he completes what Frodo was unable to complete and this situation leaves the reader with many questions to ask, ideas to consider. I also think that Gollum's end was one of the most perfect endings to any character in literature; it is not merely convenient that he did what he did, but entirely right. He disappears and then turns up right at the last moment, driven by the Ring, thus showing how far the bearers will go to keep possession of it. I also cannot see how Gollum could have gone on without the Ring, and in doing what he did, he seems to have also gained some kind of redemption.

Yes, it's a big shock, but it fits the logical pattern of the story perfectly. In the end, at Mount Doom, the culmination of all this effort, there are no heroes.

Now those Eagles, they are a different matter... ;)

[Bêthberry]

Good question!

I wouldn't say Gollum fulfilled those criteria. In fact I think his reappearance at Mount Doom is integral to the whole story; he completes what Frodo was unable to complete and this situation leaves the reader with many questions to ask, ideas to consider. I also think that Gollum's end was one of the most perfect endings to any character in literature; it is not merely convenient that he did what he did, but entirely right. He disappears and then turns up right at the last moment, driven by the Ring, thus showing how far the bearers will go to keep possession of it. I also cannot see how Gollum could have gone on without the Ring, and in doing what he did, he seems to have also gained some kind of redemption.

Yes, it's a big shock, but it fits the logical pattern of the story perfectly. In the end, at Mount Doom, the culmination of all this effort, there are no heroes.

Now those Eagles, they are a different matter... ;)


What Lal said.

[Nogrod]

Elu!

You seem to be addressing the one case, I myself am a bit dissatisfied with Tolkien. It sure would have been beautiful, if Sam and Frodo had died at the mount Doom! That would have been a story worth singing about (remember those recurrent mentionings by Sam about the food-ratios!), as Sam foretold it.

The whole ending sequence is a bit odd. First there is this "deus ex machina", the Eagles', to turn Frodo & Sam safe and sound back to Minas Tirith, and then all this stuff with the hobbits' making the better of Saruman. It's kind of an easy ending for a story that would have deserved a better one?

Another thing to be worth of a closer look, is Tolkien's going for a fatalistic solution. Like in Matrix - were the whole thing was made even more badly - the end-result is kind of "the way things have to be". Gandalf points out to the decision of Bilbo, not to kill Gollum, and Frodo takes on that: Gollum has a role to play in some larger picture, that is foretold already, even if he doesn't understand it quite yet. Then, while Frodo can't throw the Ring away, Gollum comes to finish the thing. Kind of "deus ex machina" that one too...

So everything's in order, as it will have to be, you just have to find out the reason to behave in a manner you should? But how about, if the world really is a bit more complicated place? Maybe the world is a place, where there are no easy solutions (black or white) and going strongly by your belief, really makes more damage than helps anyone?

[Farael]

Well, personally I think the Eagles may be a case of 'deux ex machina' as they had not been an integral part of the story (besides perhaps saving Gandalf from harm) and I can't recall knowing how they got there.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with Gollum being anywhere near the definition. First of all, he is definetly a big part of the story. Frodo would have never made it to where he did if it wasn't because of Gollum, even though his betrayal. Then, we just don't know what happens to Gollum, but ithere is some mention of him by the two orcs that were looking for Frodo and Sam once they escape from the tower.


'All right, all right!' said the tracker. 'I'll say no more and go on thinking. But what's the black sneak got to do with it all? That gobbler with the flapping hands?'
'I don't know. Nothing, maybe. But he's up to no good, nosing around, I'll wager. Curse him! No sooner had he slipped us and run off than word came he's wanted alive, wanted quick.''Well, I hope they get him and put him through it,' growled the 241 tracker. 'He messed up the scent back there, pinching that cast-off mail-shirt that he found, and paddling all round the place before I could get there.'

So we know Gollum is still around and even more, he is still following Frodo (he messed up the scent, therefore he is probably following it)

Besides, in retrospective, it's quite evident that Gandalf knew that Gollum would have something to do with the destruction of the ring

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many--yours not least.

I must say I added the first part mostly because I love that quote *blushes* but there we see Gandalf 'hinting' that Gollum might yet do something. When he helps the hobbits get into Mordor you can say "ah, that was it" and then he turns up in the very end (of the Ring anyhow) and destroys it.... then you realize that was his destiny all along.

Having said that, I also agree with Lalwendë in her assesment of Gollum's end.

[Firefoot]

You seem to be addressing the one case, I myself am a bit dissatisfied with Tolkien. It sure would have been beautiful, if Sam and Frodo had died at the mount Doom! That would have been a story worth singing about. I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Even if the Eagles may have been slightly out of place (more on that in a second), I definitely disagree about Sam and Frodo dying at Mt. Doom. Not only would this be extremely depressing, it would also be dissatisfying, at least to me. The story would not be complete. It would completely remove the topic of healing (or the lack thereof) and how you really can't go back, both for Sam and Frodo, but especially Frodo. It's one of those cases where dying would almost be the easier way out. The fact that they must go on and deal with it is one of the poignant things about the book.

Concerning the Eagles. Yes, I would say that they are definitely a case of Deus ex Machina. In some ways, they don't really 'fit.' Gwaihir, of course, has connections with Gandalf - are Eagles capable of osanwë? But if Frodo and Sam were to be saved, then there really doesn't seem to be much way around it. The circumstances were too dire and everyone else too far away, even if they could be able to rescue them. And although the Eagles could not have brought the Ring directly to Mordor because it would draw too much attention, there is already a battle going on (or about to go on when they start out), it's not like they're going to bring a lot of extra attention. The other thing that perhaps is not considered enough is that the Eagles might actually have come to aid in the battle (that question of osanwë again), and that their aid was just needed when Gandalf realized what was going on. So I suppose the case could be presented either way. Just like Gollum's death can be explained in other ways, so can the appearance of the Eagles.

And in a fantasy world that does have a God, and in a story where there are the themes of hope and mercy and healing, maybe the Eagles aren't so out of place after all.

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE=Firefoot]I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Even if the Eagles may have been slightly out of place (more on that in a second), I definitely disagree about Sam and Frodo dying at Mt. Doom. Not only would this be extremely depressing, it would also be dissatisfying, at least to me. The story would not be complete. It would completely remove the topic of healing (or the lack thereof) and how you really can't go back, both for Sam and Frodo, but especially Frodo. It's one of those cases where dying would almost be the easier way out. The fact that they must go on and deal with it is one of the poignant things about the book.

Well, that's quite a familiar feeling. It sure is nice to see the Hobbits coming back to their home, as learned and experienced ones'. But enough of miracles? Sorry to oppose you Firefoot again, we should be more common-minded?

Concerning the Eagles. Yes, I would say that they are definitely a case of Deus ex Machina. In some ways, they don't really 'fit.' Gwaihir, of course, has connections with Gandalf - are Eagles capable of osanwë? But if Frodo and Sam were to be saved, then there really doesn't seem to be much way around it. The circumstances were too dire and everyone else too far away, even if they could be able to rescue them. And although the Eagles could not have brought the Ring directly to Mordor because it would draw too much attention, there is already a battle going on (or about to go on when they start out), it's not like they're going to bring a lot of extra attention. The other thing that perhaps is not considered enough is that the Eagles might actually have come to aid in the battle (that question of osanwë again), and that their aid was just needed when Gandalf realized what was going on. So I suppose the case could be presented either way. Just like Gollum's death can be explained in other ways, so can the appearance of the Eagles.

Anyhow, the eagles were there, and saved the day. So "deus ex machina"!

And in a fantasy world that does have a God, and in a story where there are the themes of hope and mercy and healing, maybe the Eagles aren't so out of place after all.

The question being all the time, whether the world is fatalistic or not...

[alatar]

Isn't the deus ex machina (used in Greek plays) the fall into Sammath Naur, in regards to Gollum? Don't some believe that it's the hand of Eru who gives him the nudge over the edge?

Today, being of different opinion, I think that Gollum is not nudged, and that Eru played no overt part in it. Gollum is a rogue, meaning, to me, the element of chaos. Good and evil can be balanced, yet every now and then the pot needs a good stir, some tension, to bring forth something new. Bilbo possessed the Ring, but did not follow Frodo. Sauron desired the Ring, yet did not search for it himself and thought more of war than just finding the Ring ("I'll crush the islands of Free Folk then continue the search."). Very unmoved - inactive - and very orderly and structured, respectively.

Gollum, though old, decimated, starving, tortured in mind and body, still goes after the Ring. He plays both sides, good and evil, and even has two personalities, but what joins them is the chaos.

What a show for Eru! It most likely sat on the edge of it's seat, waiting to see how the dice would come up. Frodo could not destroy the Ring; the Wise knew or at least suspected that. Would Sauron be able to get the Ring from Frodo? Surely he would - there's no betting on that outcome. So we have Gollum, who if he gets to Frodo sooner (i.e. with Shelob), the Dark Lord might recover the Ring and all is lost. If he gets to Frodo later, Frodo puts him down before he strikes (and still all is lost). but if Gollum goes after the Ring, like he does, when Frodo is still admiring himself, there's a chance that Gollum will succeed, lose, destroy the Ring (with or without destroying Frodo), etc. The outcome is less certain and therefore more interesting.

Ah chaos. Gollum could play either side, and more likely neither side, as he was neither good nor evil, but somewhat unique. The dice were tumbling, and how will they land?

Afterwards, when Gollum reclaims the Ring yet falls off the edge (chaos makes poor choices as well as better choices - at random), the game is over. Eru, pickled pink by the great show, sends the Eagles as a 'thank you' to the players Frodo and Sam.

Hope that this makes some sense.

Gods who know what will be must get bored.

[Firefoot]

It sure is nice to see the Hobbits coming back to their home, as learned and experienced ones'. But enough of miracles? I guess I just don't get tired of the miracles. You think it's just going to be all right now - on the slopes of Mt. Doom, Frodo seems to be at peace, his burden is gone, and now the Eagles are coming - that means it's going to be all right, right? But it's not. It makes for that beautiful eucatastrophe which Tolkien brings out so well. And, at least in the view of the Shire hobbits, Frodo and Sam aren't as much the learned and experienced ones - Sam is some (okay, maybe a lot, but still not as much as M & P), but Frodo is mostly ignored. Mostly talking about Frodo here, I was meaning more of his healing process - more internal - than the new perceptions of him, if that makes sense.

This is probably why I've never had a problem with the Eagles. They might not 'fit' quite right in the story, but the miracles for me do not detract from the story, they add to it. This undoubtedly has much to do with my upbringing and faith, but there it is. The prospect that Sam's simple preserverence and hope that brought them out onto the mountain was fulfilled even beyond hope is very right to me. Even if it does take the Eagles to do it.

I haven't quite decided what I think that Gollum's fall is... a simple mistake or an act of Eru, it doesn't really matter to me. As Lalwende so well put it, it is so entirely right that whichever reason is correct (or a mixture of both) does not ultimately matter to me. It is just right.

I guess my point is that I wouldn't consider it so much fatalist as ever hopeful. It's that hope... faith... that everything will turn out right.

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE=alatar]Isn't the deus ex machina (used in Greek plays) the fall into Sammath Naur, in regards to Gollum? Don't some believe that it's the hand of Eru who gives him the nudge over the edge?

You just cling in to the point! And the question, whether Tolkien was just making a fatalistic decision, or found a way to ease Frodo up, remains...

Gollum, though old, decimated, starving, tortured in mind and body, still goes after the Ring. He plays both sides, good and evil, and even has two personalities, but what joins them is the chaos.

There are enough of mythologies to make this point. Like the Norwegian "Ginnungagap", there is the idea of chaos everywhere, as the starting position. The Babylonians' had the same story...

Ah chaos. Gollum could play either side, and more likely neither side, as he was neither good nor evil, but somewhat unique. The dice were tumbling, and how will they land?

But he really played a part! He was not a chance creature in the story, but an integral part of the whole history. He couldn't play "either side", but was destined to play the role he had to! He had no choice, as well as Frodo had no choice! They were all pawns at a greater play, which Tolkien had in his mind, creating this fatalistic universe of his?

EDIT: Cross-posted with Firefoot

[Nogrod]

I guess I just don't get tired of the miracles. You think it's just going to be all right now - on the slopes of Mt. Doom, Frodo seems to be at peace, his burden is gone, and now the Eagles are coming - that means it's going to be all right, right? But it's not. It makes for that beautiful eucatastrophe which Tolkien brings out so well. And, at least in the view of the Shire hobbits, Frodo and Sam aren't as much the learned and experienced ones - Sam is some (okay, maybe a lot, but still not as much as M & P), but Frodo is mostly ignored. Mostly talking about Frodo here, I was meaning more of his healing process - more internal - than the new perceptions of him, if that makes sense.


So it's pure aesthetics'?

That is no bad ground to interpret a book, but there are other ways to do it also... :p

Love you, Firefoot! Making a good point anyways :D

[alatar]

The eagles were permitted, in my view, to enter the fray as the quest was finished. To show beforehand (excepting the dwarf and wizard airlift to the vales of Anduin, of course) would be breaking the rules. Eru, through Manwë, sends the Istari to counter Sauron. Surely if it wanted a faster result, though with little to no free will input from the ME dwellers, Eru could have permitted the Istari Uncloaked to be delivered to Sauron's porch via the Eagles. Sauron may be the match of one or two wizards, but not five at once, and not as wizened old men but as they are in Aman.

But where's the fun in that? That would be like me pre-chewing all of my children's food. Sure it would be fun, but they'd develop weak jaws, and exactly why would they need teeth? And when I'm gone...

So the Eagles get to show up after the residents of ME, acting together (the feint of Aragorn, the defense of the Mark by the ents, the Galadhrim and Bardings etc etc) along with Frodo, uproot the current big bad weed. They're a bonus. Frodo and Sam could die on Mount Doom, but they're still needed to start the cycle again, as we see in the Scouring, as most likely the Valar aren't sending any more help.

Sauron is defeated and the rules aren't broken.

[Firefoot]

So it's pure aesthetics'? No, it's completion. If Frodo were to have died at Mt. Doom, his journey would not have been complete. Well, I suppose it would have been within the story, but he still had more learning, growing, to do. Simply killing off the characters even if it might be the most logical thing within the story to happen is not always the solution.

Okay, so maybe some of it is aesthetics. But not wholly - it's not quite that simple. There was more for them to do, further for them to go before the story could end. The problem was that without some kind of Deus ex Machina, there wasn't really a way for that to happen - hence the Eagles.

[alatar]

You just cling in to the point! And the question, whether Tolkien was just making a fatalistic decision, or found a way to ease Frodo up, remains...

There are enough of mythologies to make this point. Like the Norwegian "Ginnungagap", there is the idea of chaos everywhere, as the starting position. The Babylonians' had the same story...

Sorry, but I'm just not getting your meaning, as sometimes my brain gets scrambled.


But he really played a part! He was not a chance creature in the story, but an integral part of the whole history. He couldn't play "either side", but was destined to play the role he had to! He had no choice, as well as Frodo had no choice! They were all pawns at a greater play, which Tolkien had in his mind, creating this fatalistic universe of his?

Again not exactly sure what you mean. The grass under their feet in Parth Galen, too, played a part, and also wasn't chance creations, I guess, from some perspective. And in regards to fatalism, if I understand you, Tolkien the author can make his marionettes dance higgity-piggity as he wishes (unlike myself who quickly loses control over whatever I start to write...like most of my posts ;)), but the characters therein, like us, think that they have free will.

Everyone has choices. I'm too tired for a butterfly effect world, as that's a bit silly, but I think that we and Frodo could and can decide our fates. Frodo could have let another stand forth at Rivendell, and then we'd be discussing the Eagles saving Chuck and Tom. Or, as Lush may prefer, Rosie and Daisy.

Or, in another view, Frodo made the choice to throw the Ring away along the journey, and shortly thereafter the Ring is recovered and sometime later, the everlasting Darkness covers all who could not flee. Now, assuming ME is our 'history,' this did not happen as we wouldn't be here. Or, it did, but not in this universe, as again we still have Sam and Frodo.

Have I muddled things enough?

[Nogrod]

No, it's completion. If Frodo were to have died at Mt. Doom, his journey would not have been complete. Well, I suppose it would have been within the story, but he still had more learning, growing, to do. Simply killing off the characters even if it might be the most logical thing within the story to happen is not always the solution.

Well, what did he really learn, where did he show that growing? :rolleyes: I guess, this is just the place were Tolkien has not thought of everything... Frodo is quite lame after the climax: or unbelievably heroish' when coming to the Shire. There is something rotten in the state of the Shire... :D

Okay, so maybe some of it is aesthetics. But not wholly - it's not quite that simple. There was more for them to do, further for them to go before the story could end. The problem was that without some kind of Deus ex Machina, there wasn't really a way for that to happen - hence the Eagles.

I quite agree. J.R.R. had to find a solution, and a solution he did come by!

[Mister Underhill]

Wow, fast moving thread! I still need to catch up on the many interesting posts here, but I thought I'd toss out that there is in fact an old deus ex machina (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2528) thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2528) started by the long lost doug*platypus. Keep rolling here -- just thought those with spare time and an extra-special interest in deus ex might be interested.

I'll be back here if I can get up to speed and think of something worth adding.

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE=alatar]Sorry, but I'm just not getting your meaning, as sometimes my brain gets scrambled.

Everyone has choices. I'm too tired for a butterfly effect world, as that's a bit silly, but I think that we and Frodo could and can decide our fates.

Well, you can think it in many ways! It's not basically an argument to say that you think we can make choices to deal with our lives! You have no grounds on the question, "why", here!

You can put it in two ways; either we have the chance, or then we do not.

The first case can be put in a way, that there is something or someone, that has to choose the actions or whatever it might be. Another way to look at that, is to say, you can justify your choises' (etc.) at the face of a fortune, or a world as such, by which you have to do one thing or another.

Or then one just is a piece in the play we call the world, acting, along the lines one is supposed to act, after the chemical and biological ways we've built with. Or then we are just quantum machines, going about quite randomly, but without a clear pattern. Or then with a one?...

So just saying, I think (therefore I am - what a common sense nonsense!) , is not enough?

Sorry to make this harder as it should be...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

In the end what we think is immaterial. The point is that Tolkien thought that this world is one in which we have the freedom to choose our actions and that we are personally responsible for them. For Tolkien, each decision really does come down to a moral choice for good or ill, and without that structure his mythology and his novels make no sense. Moreover it would be extremely odd for a Christian to believe that we are simply automatons performing predetermined actions in a random and meaningless universe.

However we might view the primary world, Tolkien's sub-created universe is one with a creator, a supreme being who is the source of good. This benificent presence gives meaning to Tolkien's universe, and the presence of evil within that universe introduces the necessity for moral choice and individual moral responsibility. Many of the workings of Arda make no sense whatsoever when divorced from this structure. Now, the supreme being may sometimes intervene, directly or indirectly, but Tolkien always forces his characters to decide their own actions for themselves.

In the case of Frodo, we do actually have Tolkien's word for it that he could never have resisted the temptation of the Ring in the final crisis. Thus the conclusion of his quest presents a moral lesson about his tolerance and mercy toward Gollum. If Frodo and Sam had killed him, as it was only logical and sensible to do, then he would have been unable through his final treachery to save Frodo from the domination of the Ring. Essentially, Frodo has the opportunity to decide whether he is to destroy the Ring and complete his mission or to claim it as his own and be destroyed, but his will has been overcome. He is no longer able to make the decision for himself, but the outcome of his earlier decisions has been to bring the means of his salvation with him. All in all this does not overturn the basic premise that Frodo possesses free will within the context of Tolkien's fiction (which is the only context in which he exists in any case). Perhaps someone who has access to their books will be able to give the location of Tolkien's reflections in his published letters.

Before I was sidetracked down this philosophical path, I meant to point out that the Eagles as a deus ex machina were also discussed in Flaws in Lord of the Rings... Yes in the book. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1253&page=1&pp=40), which is also still open. There were some nice reflections there from Kalimac among others. There's also a thread called The Great Eagle Mystery (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=706), which immediately sprang to mind when I saw this discussion. These may be of help on this matter, and I certainly make more valuable contributions in the former thread than I have here. If you wanted the lyrics to albums by the Eagles, you should look at this site (http://www.eaglesmusic.com/Lyrics/search-songs.php).

[Raynor]

Now, the supreme being may sometimes intervene, directly or indirectly, but Tolkien always forces his characters to decide their own actions for themselves.Well, there are some notable exceptions; concerning 'active intervention':
- Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was _meant_to find the Ring, and _not_ by its maker. In which case you also were _meant_to have it
...
- Why did it come to me? Why was I chosen?
- Such questions cannot be answered,’ said Gandalf. ‘You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom, at any rate. But you have been chosen, and you must therefore use such strength and heart and wits as you have The Elves have their own labours and their own sorrows, and they are little concerned with the ways of hobbits, or of any other creatures upon earth. Our paths cross theirs seldom, by chance or purpose. In this meeting there may be more than chance; but the purpose is not clear to me, and I fear to say too much That is the purpose for which you are called hither. Called, I say. though I have not called you to me, strangers from distant lands. You have come and are here met, in this very nick of time, by chance as it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must now find counsel for the peril of the world
...
At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.
- I will take the Ring, he said, though I do not know the way. - I wonder? said Aragorn. He is the Bearer, and the fate of the Burden is on him. I do not think that it is our part to drive him one way or the other. Nor do I think that we should succeed, if we tried. There are other powers at work far stronger.[I also think that when foretelling is involved, it rules out free will to a certain extent; and some beings have a special doom ahead of them, such Earendil, Tuor, Thingol or Beren; Luthien is also moved by doom to Beren and their union is stated to part of the divine plan (cf letter #153)]

[alatar]

Reading Raynor's post made me think about the fact that as a species (and I would extrapolate this to our elven cousins) we have the ability and desire to see patterns. This ability yields a clear survival advantage.

Three dwarves walk singly into the East-gate of Moria, pre-Balin colony days. Each one walks in, I hear some noise, then I hear "Durin's Bane is upon us!" then "Argh!" The dwarf fails to come back out. By the third one I'm convinced that entering Moria is not warranted at this time.

Also, when one arrogant elf would rise each morning, he would note that shortly thereafter the sun would appear in the eastern sky. He concluded that his rising caused the Sun to rise also. Obviously.

My point (do I have one :rolleyes: ?) is that we have no idea if Gildor Inglorion, Elrond and Gandalf, were, shall we say, simply blowing smoke.

I was meant to type this post, and some of you knew that ;).

[Raynor]

By the third one I'm convinced that entering Moria is not warranted at this timeThat is, if you are not a dwarf - they seem to like going in a row into a trap :D.
when one arrogant elf would rise each morningI am sure you meant a drunk elf.
we have no idea if Gildor Inglorion, Elrond and Gandalf, were, shall we say, simply blowing smoke.I would give more credit to the greatest of lore-masters and the wisest of the maiar.

[alatar]

I would give more credit to the greatest of lore-masters and the wisest of the maiar.

But they could have an agenda (instilling the 'Eru exists' theory into the hobbits) or simply be delusional.

[Elu Ancalime]

Concerning Eagles: It seems that in terms of literature, everytime the Eagles appear in Tolkiens work it is some kind of Deux ex machina kind of way. Its interesting, because the Eagles are the kind of missionaries of Manwe, in a sense (they dont go around converting people, but they are his sort of representations in mortal lands). Everytime the Eagles show up it seems to modify the plot greatly whearas if they hadnt. The Dwarves might have had to trek endlessly until they made it across the Andunin, and delayed Gandalfs coming to Dol Gulder and the White Council. The Battle of Five Armies might have been a loss, or more Pyrric. Although the Eagles attcked the Nazgul at the Black Gate, we can see this led to Mount Doom. And of course, we might have had a wizards corpse on Orthanc.

Considering Gollum and the Eagles, it brings up that interesting point of fatalism mentioned. I think that in Arda, all things excluding Eru and the Valar for the most part are meant to be. Now, part of this is Mandos. The prophocey of the Dagorath proves he Eru and Manwe and anyone else know of the last battle with Melkor. However, I do not think that they know each and every thing that will happen. The Valar have the Fire, so they make choices; yet the ones that seem the most important come before the Elves. That is mainly which Ainar went with Melko and who stayed with Manwe. After then the choices are mostly one-sided. The War of Wrath is no exception; whenever Morgoth created Mass war that was destroying Middle Earth, the Valar were the only ones who could stop him if no oine else could. So I think, like Gandalf predicted, that the Ring would be destroyed, but the manner of "how" is the unknown. The destruction of the Ring, at least when spoke about the most Wise (Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn, etc) was always hinted at as,"You realize what would happen if Sauron and the RIng wernt destroyed," even though it would mean,"We known that Sauron is fated to be destroyed eventually(couldnt survive the Dagorath if it was that long) so lets take him out before things get any worse."

So I dont think Mandos and Eru knew that Ted Sandyman would be a pain, (doubtless they had the power, but that was not what it was for) but I think they knew that a being named Gandalf would aid Free Peoples including the Little People to bring about the destruction of Sauron, and a sebret Blueprint and DNA sheet of Balrogs and their bodily extremities.
________
MONTANA DISPENSARIES (http://montana.dispensaries.org/)

[Nogrod]

Last night I really seemed to have been carried away beyond my skills in the language I use. Sorry about that. I appreciate Elu's point about the Eagles.

Concerning Eagles: It seems that in terms of literature, everytime the Eagles appear in Tolkiens work it is some kind of Deux ex machina kind of way. Its interesting, because the Eagles are the kind of missionaries of Manwe, in a sense (they dont go around converting people, but they are his sort of representations in mortal lands). Everytime the Eagles show up it seems to modify the plot greatly whearas if they hadnt.

But to come to the discussion opened by Squatter of Amon Rhûdh

The point is that Tolkien thought that this world is one in which we have the freedom to choose our actions and that we are personally responsible for them. For Tolkien, each decision really does come down to a moral choice for good or ill, and without that structure his mythology and his novels make no sense. Moreover it would be extremely odd for a Christian to believe that we are simply automatons performing predetermined actions in a random and meaningless universe.

Well, that sure was Tolkien's point - I couldn't dream about arguing over that. But how should we see it? As ingenious truth about the world? As Tolkien's wisdom that outweighted many of his contemporaries, as a foolish hope of a romantic living at a wrong century, or as a fool that would gather followers more fool than he was? :)

Not wishing to offend anyone...

[Elu Ancalime]

What my beleif on Tolkien is that characters had choice that was moral, and they were given thus chance to make that choice free of supernatural intervention, but Eru and Mandos and who-not knew that choice. So it really is free will, but just they know what will happen and how it will end up; so rather than being omnipresent and omnipotent through time, its rather like a computer playing chess: They can analyze every possible move, and can draw conclusions what will happen vecause of it, but they cant influence the human players' move.
________
Hot penny stocks (http://pennystockpicks.net/)

[Nogrod]

What my beleif on Tolkien is that characters had choice that was moral, and they were given thus chance to make that choice free of supernatural intervention, but Eru and Mandos and who-not knew that choice. So it really is free will, but just they know what will happen and how it will end up; so rather than being omnipresent and omnipotent through time, its rather like a computer playing chess: They can analyze every possible move, and can draw conclusions what will happen vecause of it, but they cant influence the human players' move.

Well. That's always the good question: if someone knows your choice beforehand, is it a real choice anymore? And why would some God let her creations to choose badly anyhow? What would be the point? She would anyhow know beforehand, who would be "guessing" right, and who would not, so predeterming everything anyhow?

[AragornII]

Sorry if this isn't about what you guys are currently discussing, but I've been thinking about the "deus ex machina" thing.

In school we've been studying Shakespeare, and a "deus ex machina" was usually something like an angel or a "savior" figure that comes from the the top of the stage unexpectedly, lowered down by a machine similar to a crane. This event would happen towards the end of the play This fits the meaning of the phrase, which is "god out of machine".

Looking at it in that perspective, I'd say that the Eagles were more of a "deus ex machina" than Gollum was. They were literally saving figures coming from the sky at the end of the story, and to those who hadn't read the books, were totally unexpected. However, they did not help with the main purpose of the story. The main purpose was to destroy the Ring. They didn't really have much to do with the actual act of destroying it. It was good that they came and saved Frodo (and Sam), because it made the story better, but I don't think they meet the full criteria for "deus ex machina".

Gollum, on the other hand, fulfills the other half of the criteria. He comes out of nowhere to help with the main purpose of the story, destroying the Ring. In fact, without him, that would never have happened. But he doesn't come out of the sky, or from above. He is unexpected, though. So the way I see it, Gollum isn't fully a "deus ex machina" either.

This is just what I thought while reading the earlier parts of this thread.

[Essex]

Squatter gets it right for me here: In the case of Frodo, we do actually have Tolkien's word for it that he could never have resisted the temptation of the Ring in the final crisis. Thus the conclusion of his quest presents a moral lesson about his tolerance and mercy toward Gollum. If Frodo and Sam had killed him, as it was only logical and sensible to do, then he would have been unable through his final treachery to save Frodo from the domination of the Ring. Essentially, Frodo has the opportunity to decide whether he is to destroy the Ring and complete his mission or to claim it as his own and be destroyed, but his will has been overcome. He is no longer able to make the decision for himself, but the outcome of his earlier decisions has been to bring the means of his salvation with him.

In other words, Middle Earth was saved because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. He had the chance a number of times to rid the world of Gollum, but did not do so. In the end, this is what the whole of Lord of the Rings is about to me. REDEMPTION. ME was redeemed from falling into Sauron's hands because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. without this, ME would fall.

A couple of things. On these threads it has been mentioned that Frodo failed at the Sammath Naur and there were no 'heroes' at this point. In my point of view Frodo SUCEEDED. Did he physically throw the Ring into the Fire? NO. But what was the Quest? To destroy the One Ring. Was the One Ring destroyed? YES. Was it destroyed because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum? YES.

Therefore to me, Gollum is about as far away from a D E M as you can get. He is integral to the whole of the LOTR.

Regarding the Eagles. They were servants of Manwe, right? So giving them the Ring to fly into Mordor gives us these problems:

1/ Gwahair could well have kept the Ring for himself, just like Gandalf would have - the temptation would have been too great. These birds aren't the normal flap your wings, eat food, and die variety - They are sentient beings. So, they couldn't give the Ring to the Eagles.

2/ It would have set alarm bells ringing throughout Mordor if they attempted to fly into Mordor and Mount Doom WHILST SAURON WAS ALIVE AND THE RING NOT DESTROYED. So they couldn't do that either.

3/ Did the Eagles really save the day at the Morannon? I can't see where it says this. They assisted, no doubt, but once the Ring was cast into the Fire (which happened fairly quickly after they arrived, I surmise), then the forces of Sauron at the Black Gates did a runner anyway, didn't they?

4/ Therefore why are the Eagles a D E M? Why aren't they entitled to fight against Sauron. They faught in the battle of the 5 armies? - were they seen as a D E M there? I admit they were a way of retrieving Frodo and Sam quickly from Mount Doom. But the Eagles here are a veichle to quickly move the characters back to their friends, rather than having to have Gandalf srping after them on Shadowfax (for example) - they were a handy veichle for Tolkien to use to get his heroes back ASAP and keep the story moving.

5/ Gwahair has already been in the LOTR assisting Gandalf a couple of times, as was his wont. Again, this seems to disprove the theory that the Eagles were a D E M.

anyway, that's my 2 cents worth....

[Raynor]

These birds aren't the normal flap your wings, eat food, and die variety - They are sentient beings.I disagree:
I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fea. The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted / converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their 'talking' was really reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellious critical words — he knew about them. Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much independence as have, say, dogs or horses of their human masters. This talking was largely echoic (cf. parrots), in The Lord of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them.

The same sort of thing may be said of Huan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level - but they still had no fear.

[Essex]

fair point (haven't read that book yet, so not sure if it's tolkien's point or his son Christopher - if its the latter it's just another opinion....)

but it adds to my point that you definately don't give them the eagles the Ring then!

PS Gwahair sounded like a pretty sentient being to me......

[Raynor]

not sure if it's tolkien's point or his son Christopher - if its the latter it's just another opinion.It is made by Tolkien, in the Orcs essay of the Myths.
Gwahair sounded like a pretty sentient being to meYeah, what about a soulless dog bringing Sauron down, or a soulles eagle marring Melkor's face... can't argue with the professor though :D

[Formendacil]

can't argue with the professor though :D

Except that you can, Raynor.

In the time that you've been on the 'Downs, it has become immediately clear that you know your Letters and HoME backwards and forwards. You ought, however, realize better than most the flip-flopping of opinion that Tolkien experienced on many, many of his topics.

For example, with regards to this quotes on Eagles et al, Tolkien was looking for a viable way of explaining their apparent sentience. There is no conclusive proof (which I would define as multiple texts from later or contemporary dates giving the same opinion) that he ultimately decided that this new idea of his was correct. As I recall from that particular passage, there is a very clear air of SUGGESTION to all the texts in that section of Morgoth's Ring.

In other words, although Tolkien puts forward this as an idea, I would say that to quote it as definitively decided by him would be rather foolhardy.

[alatar]

So the way I see it, Gollum isn't fully a "deus ex machina" either.

I think the reason Gollum is associated with D E M is not the character, per se, but the 'push.' Gollum reclaims the Ring, his only goal and desire for the whole trilogy, and just when he does...whoops! Into the lava he falls. That is the D E M moment, as I understand it.

By the by, nice post Essex.

[davem]

For example, with regards to this quotes on Eagles et al, Tolkien was looking for a viable way of explaining their apparent sentience. There is no conclusive proof (which I would define as multiple texts from later or contemporary dates giving the same opinion) that he ultimately decided that this new idea of his was correct. As I recall from that particular passage, there is a very clear air of SUGGESTION to all the texts in that section of Morgoth's Ring.

In other words, although Tolkien puts forward this as an idea, I would say that to quote it as definitively decided by him would be rather foolhardy.

We're clearly dealing with two Tolkiens - the 'translator' & the 'commentator'. The 'translator' gives us the texts, the 'commentator' attempts to understand them (for himself as much as for any potential readers). The texts are primary the comments are secondary.

Unfortunately, the 'texts' do contradict each other, so that doesn't take us much further forward.

CT comments (in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait) that towards the end of his life his father had become somewhat 'detatched' from the Legendarium & approached it in the same way as he would have approached any ancient mythology. It had taken on a life of its own & he was free to analyse it & attempt to understand its meaning & implications. He did this as an Orthodox Catholic & his analysis was not free from bias. In Catholicism animals do not have 'souls', they are not 'sentient' in the human sense. Hence Tolkien the commentator attempts to rationalise the Legendarium in line with his own worldview.

The next serious problem we have is that he still claimed ownership of the Legendarium. Eventually his 'analysis' confronted him with a major difficulty - it was not 'Catholic'. Or at least it was not sufficiently Catholic for his own comfort. One has only to read the letters from correspondents which question such things as the apparent display of pity on the part of the Trolls in TH. Tolkien's initial response was to claim it was only an 'impression' the reader had picked up & that the truth was different (he proceeds to construct a very convoluted & not very convincing theory as to how the reader is mistaken in this 'impression'). So far the translator & the commentator are obeying the rules & sticking to the strict dividing line between them. Then it all starts to go snafu. He starts his project of rewriting the Legendarium & we get the 'Myths Transformed' mess, which, if he'd pursued it, would have unravelled the whole thing. Luckily, he didn't get very far.

[Raynor]

Kelvars with souls presents a host of problems; their fea must come from Eru also (no vala is capable of creating spirits); now animals arrived in Arda before even the elves (creatures "old and strong") - so incarnate fear would be allowed to awaken before the elves, but dwarves can't? And we are also told the Children of Eru (men and elves) are the creator's own addition to the music - if animals have souls, then they too are an addition, but no one is looking forward to/over them (only poor Radagast ;) ), no one is seeking rule over them and there is no mention of them in the Ainulindale.
Elves and Men were called the 'children of God', because they were, so to speak, a private addition to the Design, by the Creator, and one in which the Valar had no part. (Their 'themes' were introduced into the Music by the One, when the discords of Melkor arose.)
Would these animals have free will? If so, why don't the valar marvel at them, as they to at the Eruhini? Where would their souls go, to Mandos or beyond the world? If they go beyond the world, that would mean that the valar and the elves should envy even the animals. Would the animals participate in the second Ainulindale?

It is worth noting that Elves differentiate between incarnates (beings with both fea and hrondo) and animals: The Eldar did not at first recognize these [the petty dwarves] as Incarnates, for they seldom caught sight of them in clear light. They only became aware of their existence indeed when they attacked the Eldar by stealth at night, or if they caught them alone in wild places. The Eldar therefore thought that they were a kind of cunning two-legged animals living in caves, and they called them Levain tad-dail, or simply Tad-dail, and they hunted them.Would all living beings have a soul? Even the tinniest? And if not, where is the line drawn? If the animals do have souls, I am sure that there should have been a lot about them in the elvish lore, seeing how eager the elves were to learn as much as they could about their place in the world, and their relation to the valar and Men.

[Lalwendë]

In other words, Middle Earth was saved because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. He had the chance a number of times to rid the world of Gollum, but did not do so. In the end, this is what the whole of Lord of the Rings is about to me. REDEMPTION. ME was redeemed from falling into Sauron's hands because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. without this, ME would fall.

A couple of things. On these threads it has been mentioned that Frodo failed at the Sammath Naur and there were no 'heroes' at this point. In my point of view Frodo SUCEEDED. Did he physically throw the Ring into the Fire? NO. But what was the Quest? To destroy the One Ring. Was the One Ring destroyed? YES. Was it destroyed because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum? YES.

Therefore to me, Gollum is about as far away from a D E M as you can get. He is integral to the whole of the LOTR.

This is very interesting. My usual take on Frodo's heroism is always that it was the getting to Mount Doom that was the truly heroic part, but I think that we might often overlook his heroism in offering compassion to Gollum. I'm not sure at what point he decides in his heart not to hurt or kill Gollum, but at some stage an 'epiphany' of understanding takes place within Frodo.

This may be what Gandalf was hinting at all the way way back in Bag End when he asked Frdod if he really could kill a creature such as Gollum. I think Gandalf too may have had this moment of realisation, or even had it from the beginning. It may have taken deep understanding of the true nature of The Ring to appreciate what Gollum was and what he was motivated by, something Gandalf would perhaps have known, but maybe only another Ring Bearer could truly understand? Even so, Sam, despite being a Ring Bearer, still does not appreciate Gollum in the same way that Frodo does.

If Frodo's compassion was leading up to the moment of confrontation at the Sammath Naur then this makes this different take on Frodo's heroism all the more interesting; it is only at the point where possession of The Ring is truly at stake that compassion turns to anger. Gollum of course has been almost (but not necessarily completely) possessed by The Ring, whereas Frodo has to this point remained relatively unpossessed. Right at the end, both are suddenly utterly possessed and the compassion that has got them there flies out of the window as they fight for The Ring. So it's fascinating that at this point Sauron's influence is so strong and yet it is overcome, by fate or just chance?

To me the fact that Gollum came back at this stage is not only integral to the story, but perfectly fits with Gollum's character and personality, and I agree, Gollum cannot be called a Deus ex machina.

1/ Gwahair could well have kept the Ring for himself, just like Gandalf would have - the temptation would have been too great. These birds aren't the normal flap your wings, eat food, and die variety - They are sentient beings. So, they couldn't give the Ring to the Eagles.

This is another very interesting idea worth exploring. I suppose it depends upon whether the Eagles are sentient or even if they can be counted as Maiar. Either way, I think it's right that for them to take The Ring would have been incredibly risky. Could we imagine Gandalf marching into Mordor with The Ring? Not only would that have attracted attention and all hell would have been unleashed, but for him to have the Ring would have been almost as bad as Saruman or Sauron having it. I honestly think that the only way to get The Ring there was to have it sneaked in.

[davem]

Kelvars with souls presents a host of problems; their fea must come from Eru also (no vala is capable of creating spirits); now animals arrived in Arda before even the elves (creatures "old and strong") - so incarnate fear would be allowed to awaken before the elves, but dwarves can't? And we are also told the Children of Eru (men and elves) are the creator's own addition to the music - if animals have souls, then they too are an addition, but no one is looking forward to/over them (only poor Radagast ), no one is seeking rule over them and there is no mention of them in the Ainulindale.

This problem only arises if the Great Eagles, Huan, et al are 'simply' animals. If they are incarnate Maiar it doesn't. It seems to me that it is perhaps a question not of whether they possess fea (a 'spirit'), which it would seem they do, as they are technically sentient (they are conscious, can think, suffer, feel pain, etc), but whether they possess sana (mind) ie, whether they are self conscious & have a 'soul'. In M-e a rational being seems to be tri-partite (a division into three again!) - fea-sana-hroa.

The idea that the Great Eagles, Huan, Shadowfax, Roac, etc have no sana doesn't stand up. The idea that along with Orcs & Trolls they are merely 'machines' doesn't work. If Morgoth (& later Sauron?) is simply supplying their motivating force simply begs the question 'Who is supplying the motivating force of the Eagles, Huan, Shadowfax (& why does Gandalf refer to Shadowfax as his 'friend', or Legolas refer to Arod in the same way?. A Wizard & an Elf would not refer to a 'robot' as a friend).

I think the simplest explanation is that (in M-e at least) most animals are made up of fea & hroa, but some also have sana as well. Whether sana is gifted to certain animals by Eru is another question.

[Elu Ancalime]

=Nogrod
Well. That's always the good question: if someone knows your choice beforehand, is it a real choice anymore? And why would some God let her creations to choose badly anyhow? What would be the point? She would anyhow know beforehand, who would be "guessing" right, and who would not, so predeterming everything anyhow?


Well, even if they knew the choice, they didnt have to influence it. Like, we all (should have known) that Kuru would do what he did at the end of Survivor: The Hobbit but nobody really made him do it.

Also thats what I think. ITs just a mix. Because what does it matter to Eru anyhow? Arda will become Healed in the End, so when you know the Beginning and you know the End, does what happen in the Middle really matter to him?
________
Yamaha xv250 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_XV250)

[AragornII]

Originally posted by alatar
I think the reason Gollum is associated with D E M is not the character, per se, but the 'push.' Gollum reclaims the Ring, his only goal and desire for the whole trilogy, and just when he does...whoops! Into the lava he falls. That is the D E M moment, as I understand it.

From Merriam-Webster Online:
a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome; a person or thing that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and contrives a solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.

Looking at this defintion, and the one I used, both of us are right, in my opinion. Gollum was a person that was sudden and unexpected and solved the problem of destorying the Ring, so by this defintion, he is a D E M.

[littlemanpoet]

Gwahair sounded like a pretty sentient being to me......

But so do Shagrat and Gorbag. And Ugluk. And Grishnakh.

I can't agree with Tolkien about his own work here, if it's actually his idea. It doesn't seem to fit his understanding of evil. Beasts raised to a higher level? Maybe. But the language of the above named orcs strike me as being more akin to human sentience that has become extremely evil and cunning, especially in the case of Grishnakh (best orc Tolkien ever wrote!).

[Celuien]

Agree with you about the Orcs, lmp. Shagrat and Gorbag do seem far more than beasts. Maybe the non-sentient Orcs of Myths Transformed (something I have yet to read) are a later modification. Heren Istarion's article (http://www.barrowdowns.com/articles_orcs.php) does an excellent job attempting to reconcile the differences, I think.

Back to Deux ex Machina...

Adding that Gollum is too integral to the story as a character to fit the definition. His death and simultaneous destruction of the Ring fit with the tale. It feels natural, almost, for the character that became so consumed by the Ring to fall with it in the end, both figuratively and literally.

As for the Eagles, their appearance is more troublesome. Although if taken in context with The Hobbit, not enirely unexpected. The birds seem to have a penchant for appearing out of nowhere and saving the day. ;)

Throwing out some more ideas, how about Tom Bombadil as an example? Granted, he isn't at the end of the book but his only appearance is in the Old Forest to save the hobbits from the clutches of Old Man Willow/The Barrow-Wight. His arrival is certainly unexpected, then he vanishes from the plot forever, other than a few references.

EDIT: just perused the old thread and saw that the Tom Bombadil = deus ex machina (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=44307&postcount=27) idea was previously put forth by none other than The Saucepan Man. Interesting... :D

[alatar]

Agree with you about the Orcs, lmp. Shagrat and Gorbag do seem far more than beasts. Maybe the non-sentient Orcs of Myths Transformed (something I have yet to read) are a later modification. Heren Istarion's article (http://www.barrowdowns.com/articles_orcs.php) does an excellent job attempting to reconcile the differences, I think.
Is it that the Third Age orcs and other ilk have fallen from their original automaton evil prototype and, like men and elves, are lesser than like what came before? Men slowly became less long-lived and embued with special powers; orcs slowly decide that cannon fodder is a poor life. Isn't that the idea hinted at behind the 'fourth age snippet', that men and orcs were converging, so that by the present neither race is clearly distinguishable?


Adding that Gollum is too integral to the story as a character to fit the definition. His death and simultaneous destruction of the Ring fit with the tale. It feels natural, almost, for the character that became so consumed by the Ring to fall with it in the end, both figuratively and literally.
Gollum I have no problem with, it's just that it is too convenient to have him fall just after he reclaims the Ring. Tolkien, assumedly in control of the situation, could have had Smeagol claim the Ring with Frodo between him and the Crack of Doom, and so his death (and consequent destruction of the Ring) could have taken more effort by Frodo and/or Sam, who could have given the wretched thing a bump into the lava.


As for the Eagles, their appearance is more troublesome. Although if taken in context with The Hobbit, not enirely unexpected. The birds seem to have a penchant for appearing out of nowhere and saving the day. ;)
That they do, though it's less apparent (at least to me) in the Hobbit, where Gandalf and a bunch of dwarves and Bilbo sitting in a tree throwing burning pine cones at the orcs and wargs below surely would have attracted their attention. And, after having saved Gandalf and the others, they may have seen that something interesting was going to come of the campaign, and so paid it more attention.

The eagles at the Black Gate is another matter, as they could have shown up an hour of two earlier and just made it known that the new Ringlord, as played by Aragorn, also had close air support.

[littlemanpoet]

Is it that the Third Age orcs and other ilk have fallen from their original automaton evil prototype and, like men and elves, are lesser than like what came before? Men slowly became less long-lived and embued with special powers; orcs slowly decide that cannon fodder is a poor life. Isn't that the idea hinted at behind the 'fourth age snippet', that men and orcs were converging, so that by the present neither race is clearly distinguishable?You consider this a fall by orcs?

Gollum I have no problem with, it's just that it is too convenient to have him fall just after he reclaims the Ring. Tolkien, assumedly in control of the situation, could have had Smeagol claim the Ring with Frodo between him and the Crack of Doom, and so his death (and consequent destruction of the Ring) could have taken more effort by Frodo and/or Sam, who could have given the wretched thing a bump into the lava.But that would render Frodo a killer, which would drastically change the kind of character he had become. Not even Peter Jackson for an action oriented modern flick, could stoop that low.

That they do, though it's less apparent (at least to me) in the Hobbit, where Gandalf and a bunch of dwarves and Bilbo sitting in a tree throwing burning pine cones at the orcs and wargs below surely would have attracted their attention. And, after having saved Gandalf and the others, they may have seen that something interesting was going to come of the campaign, and so paid it more attention.What's the difference between an deus ex machinum(a?) and a eucatastrophe, anyway? Or are you implying that there isn't one?

[alatar]

You consider this a fall by orcs?
Depends. The bad guys, back in the day, used to be the big valar type, attacking the strongholds of the other 'gods,' breaking pillars of light, perverting elves into orcs and having Balrog's as cohorts (they even had their own jackets). By the time we get to the end of the Third Age, we have an eyeball, orcs with tan-lines and trolls with speech and an extensive knowledge of the culinary arts. So I'd say, fall.


But that would render Frodo a killer, which would drastically change the kind of character he had become. Not even Peter Jackson for an action oriented modern flick, could stoop that low.
Well, that's the insult of all insults...;) And I considered what you've stated right after I posted, and starting thinking how to (1) dig my way out of this one and (2) think about how Tolkien's story could have been different had Gollum required a push. Could it be shown that Sam loved Frodo and Rosie and the Shire so much that he feels compelled to 'save' it? Does Frodo take one for the team and take Gollum down with himself? Does Frodo push and so 'murder' Gollum, and so he then has to deal with that the rest of his life in Aman? I'll give it some thought if anyone's interested.


What's the difference between an deus ex machinum(a?) and a eucatastrophe, anyway? Or are you implying that there isn't one?
I'd say a lot. The eagles helping Gandalf save Frodo and Sam are D E M, and not E. Still, that's a late night thought...

[The Saucepan Man]

I'd say a lot. The eagles helping Gandalf save Frodo and Sam are D E M, and not E. Still, that's a late night thought...Might it depend upon the reaction that they provoke in the reader? Logically, the Eagles seem to me to fit the description of Deus Ex Machina in most, if not all, situations in which they appear. Yet, emotionally, their arrival has always provoked joy in me. This became clear to me when watching the films when the screech signifying their imminent arrival was (on both occasions) sufficient to reduce me to a blubbering jelly. :D

[Essex]

Alatar re Gollum I have no problem with, it's just that it is too convenient to have him fall just after he reclaims the Ring. Tolkien, assumedly in control of the situation, could have had Smeagol claim the Ring with Frodo between him and the Crack of Doom, and so his death (and consequent destruction of the Ring) could have taken more effort by Frodo and/or Sam, who could have given the wretched thing a bump into the lava.Don't you see how perfect it is that Gollum just fell? If he was pushed or fell over in a tussle, then my point on Redemption a few posts ago would not stand.

The whole ME was saved because of the compassion of Frodo towards Gollum in not killing him, and to a lesser extent the love Sam felt for Frodo that Sam didn't kill him either!

Frodo could not throw the Ring in the fire and at last put the Ring on and claimed it. This would have happened to ANYONE at the Sammath Naur. Frodo even came to realise this near the end BUT HE KEPT ON GOING ANYWAY. That is the mark of the man.

Tolkien had 5 ways to finish the main part of the story here.

1/ Frodo throws the ring in
2/ frodo fights gollum and he falls in
3/ frodo pushes gollum in
4/ sam pushes frodo in
5/ gollum slips

I put it to you that

1/ what an anti climax that would have been!
2/ works ok in the movie but would have left a bad taste in my mouth book wise, in realising what everything tolkien was writiing was leading up to
3/ again, same as #2 and also frodo would be a 'murderer'
4/ too over the top - (no matter what some melodramatic readers might say!)
5/ works out perfectly - because of Frodo's forgiveness aqnd compassion towards his 'enemy', the Quest suceeded. Without this, the whole story would have been in vain and Middle Earth lost.

I beg you guys to keep this in mind as a back thought when you read LOTR again. Just see how it plays out.........

[Formendacil]

I'd say a lot. The eagles helping Gandalf save Frodo and Sam are D E M, and not E. Still, that's a late night thought...

They are closer in my opinion than they are in yours.

After all, the colloquial translation (not the literal translation) of deus ex machina is "An Act of God". And "An Act of God" seems like a very fitting way of describing a Eucatastrophe...

[Raynor]

I would say that the eagle rescue is definitely eucatastrophic; after all, in On fairy stories, Tolkien states (in refference to this):
But the 'consolation' of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it.moreover, in a 1944 letter to his son, he reffers to the eucatastrophic emotion felt by Bilbo when is saved by the eagles (the "sudden joyous turn") - so I would say both stories "end" in a rather similar fashion.

[littlemanpoet]

I'm experiencing dé ja vú here. I think I figured out why:

Complex D.E.M. (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=39728&postcount=19)

"They weren't," says Doug*Platypus (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showthread.php?t=2528&highlight=deus).

To my understanding, a "deus ex machina" has to do violence to the story to be so considered. If it doesn't, then you are stretching the term to fit the example. That said, neither the Eagles, nor Gollum's slip are deux ex machinae, for they fit within the whole construction of middle earth. If you're Formendacil, on the other hand, then all of life is a deus ex machina, and it's a moot point. Right, Formy? ;)

[Lalwendë]

Don't you see how perfect it is that Gollum just fell? If he was pushed or fell over in a tussle, then my point on Redemption a few posts ago would not stand.

I also think it is perfect that Gollum simply fell in.

The books begin with Gandalf asking Frodo if he could kill Gollum, if he would not feel pity for him, and they end without Frodo killing Gollum, as Gollum simply trips. Frodo could not have pushed Gollum into the fires under his right mind, as he had lost it, so if he had pushed him in, then it would have been an act of rage in an attempt to gain mastery himself; Frodo's 'victory' may have been cheapened by this. If Frodo had regained his mind, then pushing Gollum in may not even have occurred to him at that point; again, if it had, then the victory would be different.

In some respects, at that point what we may expect will happen next is that Gollum will pull Frodo in with him, or that Frodo will sacrifice himself to take Gollum over the edge. We often see this kind of self-sacrificing ending in modern fiction and film, even Peter Jackson played on this possibility.

But Tolkien side-stepped all the obvious possibilities, even the idea of Sam finishing Gollum and the Ring off. It could be seen as risky to go for the 'Gollum slipped' option, as it is undramatic, nobody is made a hero, it's almost slapstick. It could also have been a huge anticlimax. I think it is pulled off only because Gollum himself is made out as a complex character, not a bad guy, but not good either. The death of Gollum and destruction of the Ring are unglorious, which demeans Sauron and his 'power', and uneventful as befits an ambiguous character.

Of course, this simple ending also leaves us with endless possibilities to discuss whether Eru had a hand in this or not, too. ;)

[Formendacil]

If you're Formendacil, on the other hand, then all of life is a deus ex machina, and it's a moot point. Right, Formy? ;)

I get the feeling I'm being mocked...

But yes, you could look at it that way... :p

[littlemanpoet]

I get the feeling I'm being mocked...

But yes, you could look at it that way... :pNo! NO! :eek: No mockery intended; rather, an inside (so to speak) joke. Sorry for my unclarity! You see, you and I both believe (read understand ;)) that God is in the middle of all of life, so everything is therefore by definition a Deus ex machina. .... right?

[davem]

No! NO! :eek: No mockery intended; rather, an inside (so to speak) joke. Sorry for my unclarity! You see, you and I both believe (read understand ;)) that God is in the middle of all of life, so everything is therefore by definition a Deus ex machina. .... right?

Only if the Universe is a 'machine', rather than a living process. Of course, the 'Machine' meant something different to Tolkien (as we've often discussed). Tolkien claimed the Ring as the ultimate Machine, so I suppose the
'deus ex machina' of M-e would be the Ring imbued with the life-force of Sauron.

[alatar]

Note that if you're looking for a coherent cogent post, you might want to look elsewhere, and this author is not responsible for any collateral neurulogical damage as your brain screams 'Enough!' You've been warned.

The eagles are not "the hand of God," which is another way of saying D E M. In Arda we see the eagles attack Morgoth, and keep a watch on his doings (lot of help that was to the Elves ;)), and they helped Turgon keep Gondolin hidden for a time. Later we have the eagles assist Thorin's party, and they also take part in the Battle of Five Armies. We have Gwaihir rescue Gandalf from both Orthanc and Zirakzigil, and throughout LotR there's times when an eagle is noted to be circling about.

Lastly, the eagles assist in the rescue of Frodo and Sam, at the end of all things, when the two hobbits are surely doomed.

See the Hand of God? Don't think so. As lmp kids Formendacil, technically, in an Eru-constructed universe, everything is wrought by Eru's hands, even Melkor and his subsequent deeds. But I think that when we talk about D E M/ HoG, we mean a specific intervention of the divine that tips the scales, miraculously, in a 'good' way. The eagles show up so that Gandalf can rescue the hobbits, but if they were purely the HoG, then they could have went to Mount Doom without Gandalf's prompting. Maybe Eru's hands via Manwë make the eagles available, but again, the eagles themselves aren't D E M.

Is the appearance of the eagles in the examples above so out of the ordinary that the average reader can see the HoG? Having done some looking for God's fingerprints myself, I'm always reminded that I have to rule out other, more mundane, explanations for the squiggly lines before tagging the event as a 'miracle.' By definition, a miracle should have such a low probability of occurance that you can only shug your shoulders and say, "I have no explanation as the event is contrary to every other thing that I observe." In books, when done poorly, the author will simply pull something out of nowhere just to finish off a plot, and the reader is dumbfounded as the fix is completely unnatural in an artificial way. You get the feeling that the author has either written him/herself into a corner, is lazy and tired of the story, and so cuts through the Gordian plot with a suddenly-found chainsaw that drops from the air, then burns the loose ends with a flamethrower.

When done well, the reader isn't quite sure if he/she sees the fingerprints or not.

But back to a point. Does the D E M always result in good, or a eucatastrophe? An obvious HoG moment is the drowning of Numenor. It's not even subtle, as I think that the text states that Manwë lays down his authority and says to Eru, "have at 'em." The Gift is taken back, and many die. The link provided in a post above has that Mablung is D E M in regards to Turin and Nienor Níniel, and I think that D E M is definitely not eucatastrophic.

Just some thoughts.

[Essex]

Is the appearance of the eagles in the examples above so out of the ordinary that the average reader can see the HoG?... By definition, a miracle should have such a low probability of occurance that you can only shug your shoulders and say, "I have no explanation as the event is contrary to every other thing that I observe." In books, when done poorly, the author will simply pull something out of nowhere just to finish off a plot, and the reader is dumbfounded as the fix is completely unnatural in an artificial way. You get the feeling that the author has either written him/herself into a corner, is lazy and tired of the story, and so cuts through the Gordian plot with a suddenly-found chainsaw that drops from the air, then burns the loose ends with a flamethrower.Excellent point. This reminds me of something slightly different to HoG or DEM and that is Coincedence. There's an author (and policitcal animal / jailbird / charity fundraiser) called Jeffrey Archer here in England. I disagree with about 99.99 % of what he says, but once, long ago in the mists of time, he stated that Coincedences may happen in real life, but they NEVER work in Fiction, and are an easy 'get out' for the author.

[JennyHallu]

My take on the Eagles were that they were to enhance our understanding of Frodo's state of mind. The task is over, and he's reached a point of physical and emotional exhaustion he's managed to stave off all this time. He sees the Eagles through a haze of unreality, he's confused as to what story he's in. We are almost given the impression that the Eagles are a hallucination, and are delighted and surprised when we find Frodo and Sam are still alive at the beginning of the next. They needed a miracle, and they got one.

Perhaps it's a Deus Ex Machina on purpose. As it has been previously defined, an Act of God. That doesn't necessarily imply any weakness on the part of the author, but a story in which God is very real.

As for Coincidence, I fear I must disagree with Jeffrey Archer there. If he is so unreliable most of the time, Essex, he is probably unreliable all of the time. Half of Shakespeare is reliant on coincidence...A Comedy of Errors (an entire genre!) is entirely dependent upon coincidence for plot and resolution.

[Elu Ancalime]

Celuien, I agree with you about SpM's nudge on Bombadil. Probably the best example.

Well, In a Middle-Earth sense of view(and especially one of the WIse) the Eagles might not be surprised. Elves in general seem to not be surprised by anything, and in the Third Age at least, they have seen it all, so they dont seem to get really excited. So, the Eagles taking Frodo and Sam may not be unlooked for Elrond and the boys back home. And although Gollum himself may not be DEM, his action might be considered literary-speaking.

When using a DEM, it is to end the conflict and save the Good from their impending loss to Evil. So really, redemption may be a theme, since the Good have suffered so long while they resisted Evil. So, Gollum didnt mean to destroy the Ring, but it is kind of a Trade-off for (between the hobbits and Gollum in this case) Frodo's compassion. Smeagol may not have been able to rid himself of the Ring and Gollum, but for Frodo in a way giving him a short experiance of good, Gollum also saved Frodo from turning into what Gollum did. In this way, Gollum's action (even though in the end he succumbed to evil) is saving Frodo from what he couldnt save himself from. This can be like a Christ view, but more equal. Gollum sacrifices himself (and he dosnt know or feel it, but) and that takes the Ring out of play, but only because Gollum put himself on the lowest level and betrayed Frodo. I think Frodo, when his finger was seperated, then was actually free from his 'fit', even though the Ring would not be destroyed for moments later. So Then maybe for a plit second, Frodo might have realized what Smeagol went through, and then again, pity, and the fact his was hurtin', stoped him from puttin an end to Gollum. So Gollum is like the man that has been enamoured in evil, and when the good man tries to fix him, that good man falls. But the first evil man takes all the evil and frees the good man, who endured evil in a Job-Like way, until the very end, but was saved.

Um, does that make any sense? :confused:

................................
________
MFLB (http://mflbvaporizer.com)

[littlemanpoet]

Only if the Universe is a 'machine', rather than a living process.
It's an unfortunate expression. "God in the Machine." I suppose it probably originated during the enlightenment era? That would explain the reductionistic turn of the phrase. Of course I think it's much more organic than that. After all, the Universe itself resides in the Mind of God, remember? So if anything, it's more like "Homosapiens ex Deum".... or something like that.....

So basically, what you're saying, alatar, is that the Eagles are one of the races that make up the Free Peoples. If so, I agree.

By definition, a miracle should have such a low probability of occurance that you can only shug your shoulders and say, "I have no explanation as the event is contrary to every other thing that I observe."I would put it a different way. Be definition, a miracle must operate in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law. Such as a malignant tumor in the brain, scanned and documented one day, is not there at all a week later. Or a blind man receiving back sight by means of spit and dirt rubbed in his eyes.

But I agree with you in regard to the Eagles not functioning as "miraculous", by either definition.

[Earendilyon]

It's an unfortunate expression. "God in the Machine." I suppose it probably originated during the enlightenment era?
Actually, the expression is far older, dating back to Greek and Roman theatre. It actually means 'god out of a machine/crane'. It refers, of course, not to God, but to one of the many Greek/Roman gods (though I've heard that in theological/philosophical circles these gods were the reflection of one God (to which the altar Paul saw in Athens dedicated to 'the unknown god' is said to have been dedicated to)).

[davem]

[QUOTE=littlemanpoet]
I would put it a different way. Be definition, a miracle must operate in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law. Such as a malignant tumor in the brain, scanned and documented one day, is not there at all a week later. Or a blind man receiving back sight by means of spit and dirt rubbed in his eyes.
QUOTE]

I'm a bit uncertain about simply classing anything we can't currently explain as a 'miracle' & attributing it to 'God'. This 'God of the Gaps' approach seems a bit superstitious. Many things our ancestors would have classed as miracles because they couldn't explain them are accepted by us as results of natural processes & I'm sure many things which we now call 'miracles' will go the same way.

In short, its a bit presumtious to say what is within & what is outside 'natural law' when we don't know what the parameters of 'natural law' are. Also, if God is 'within', at the heart of, creation, then the 'Divine' is also the 'natural', so its a bit difficult to draw a line between them (another consequence of Incarnation, I suppose)

[Lalwendë]

I'm a bit uncertain about simply classing anything we can't currently explain as a 'miracle' & attributing it to 'God'. This 'God of the Gaps' approach seems a bit superstitious. Many things our ancestors would have classed as miracles because they couldn't explain them are accepted by us as results of natural processes & I'm sure many things which we now call 'miracles' will go the same way.

In short, its a bit presumtious to say what is within & what is outside 'natural law' when we don't know what the parameters of 'natural law' are. Also, if God is 'within', at the heart of, creation, then the 'Divine' is also the 'natural', so its a bit difficult to draw a line between them (another consequence of Incarnation, I suppose)

Maybe its a case not of the 'parameters' of nature, but our perceptions of nature. These may or may not include scientific theories. So to a tribal people deep in the Amazon rainforest it may be a 'miracle' that the sun rises every day, while to us it is explained by science.

And even so, despite possessing scientific knowledge we can still be amazed by the fact that the Sun does rise. If not a literal 'miracle' it is still a metaphorical miracle.

If that makes sense. ;)

[littlemanpoet]

I'm a bit uncertain about simply classing anything we can't currently explain as a 'miracle' & attributing it to 'God'. This 'God of the Gaps' approach seems a bit superstitious. Many things our ancestors would have classed as miracles because they couldn't explain them are accepted by us as results of natural processes & I'm sure many things which we now call 'miracles' will go the same way.

In short, its a bit presumtious to say what is within & what is outside 'natural law' when we don't know what the parameters of 'natural law' are. Also, if God is 'within', at the heart of, creation, then the 'Divine' is also the 'natural', so its a bit difficult to draw a line between them (another consequence of Incarnation, I suppose)
Hmmm... so I'm being presumptuous? ...... again?!? :eek: ;) Whereas it's true that certain things that were deemed miraculous in past ages are now understood as being governed by known natural laws, that can't be said for all the possibilities that fall within the parameters of "a miracle operating in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law". Some instances will necessarily always fall outside natural laws because they're supernatural. There is matter (that which is classed under physical law), psyche or soul (that which is classed under psychological principles), and spirit (that which is classed under spiritual law). This probably clarified nothing for you, but it makes perfect sense to me.

[Elu Ancalime]

It's an unfortunate expression. "God in the Machine." I suppose it probably originated during the enlightenment era?

While the concept might be used long before, i believe it was Shakespearan.

So if anything, it's more like "Homosapiens ex Deum".... or something like that.....

Well, thats how it is supposed to appear, because at the end of a book a/the/whatever God really did come down and end the conflict, the term would be unnessecary because it is literal.

By definition, a miracle should have such a low probability of occurance that you can only shug your shoulders and say, "I have no explanation as the event is contrary to every other thing that I observe."


But that still means it is possible. It is just phsycologically dissmissed and up to that point, physically impossible. But because its never happened before dosn't make it impossible. So I agree with you.
But I agree with you in regard to the Eagles not functioning as "miraculous", by either definition.

Well this might be where theres a No1 and a No2 in the dictionary. Surely it wasnt: "WHOA! Eagles can fly and carry hobbits! Thats impossible!"

So instead of it being physically, its the circumstance.
See the Hand of God? Don't think so. As lmp kids Formendacil, technically, in an Eru-constructed universe, everything is wrought by Eru's hands, even Melkor and his subsequent deeds. But I think that when we talk about D E M/ HoG, we mean a specific intervention of the divine that tips the scales, miraculously, in a 'good' way. The eagles show up so that Gandalf can rescue the hobbits, but if they were purely the HoG, then they could have went to Mount Doom without Gandalf's prompting. Maybe Eru's hands via Manw? make the eagles available, but again, the eagles themselves aren't D E M.

Once again, I think the idea is not meant to be direct and literal. The idea of the DEM is that it is allegorical and representational. HoG, however, sounds like the direct and literal term.
________
Herbal vaporizers (http://herbalvaporizers.info)

[davem]

Hmmm... so I'm being presumptuous? ...... again?!? :eek: ;) Whereas it's true that certain things that were deemed miraculous in past ages are now understood as being governed by known natural laws, that can't be said for all the possibilities that fall within the parameters of "a miracle operating in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law". Some instances will necessarily always fall outside natural laws because they're supernatural. There is matter (that which is classed under physical law), psyche or soul (that which is classed under psychological principles), and spirit (that which is classed under spiritual law). This probably clarified nothing for you, but it makes perfect sense to me.

But you're still defining 'miracles' as things which are inexplicable in terms of natural law, when we haven't actually set the parameters of natural law. Where, exactly, are you setting the dividing line between natural & supernatural - & what's your justification for setting it there as opposed to elsewhere?

Now, if you were saying that the fact that there is something rather than nothing is a 'miracle', that the sun shines on the grass, & every blade is both similar to & unique from every other, that there are sunsets & mountains, that I can experience all of those things - that all those things are 'miracles' (even the fact that there are natural laws which apply in every part of the Universe) I'd struggle to argue with the point, but to say that 'X' can't be explained by current scientific thinking, therefore it (& it alone) is a 'miracle' seems a bit limiting. The whole thing is a miracle, not just the bits we can't explain - what you're calling a 'miracle' I'd just call inexplicable.

[Bêthberry]

If you are going to get into miracle versus DEM, why not expand the terms of reference to include Gandalf's return as Gandalf the White? ;)

[Nogrod]

But you're still defining 'miracles' as things which are inexplicable in terms of natural law, when we haven't actually set the parameters of natural law. Where, exactly, are you setting the dividing line between natural & supernatural - & what's your justification for setting it there as opposed to elsewhere?

The "natural law" -thing is a case in point. People really started to believe in natural laws only at the 17th century - and even then, most of them needed a Divine mind to correct them and to keep them going. We've come a long way after that.

What I have been wondering somewhat, is that, is there any supernatural for people, who don't have the idea of the natural in our sense?

Talking of naturalness / supernaturalness begs definition! One can't just suppose, that because we have concepts like that, they readily apply to reality just like that?

[davem]

What I have been wondering somewhat, is that, is there any supernatural for people, who don't have the idea of the natural in our sense?

Talking of naturalness / supernaturalness begs definition! One can't just suppose, that because we have concepts like that, they readily apply to reality just like that?

A passage from 'The Blue Cross' by GK Chesterton comes to mind:

"Ah, yes, these modern infidels appeal to their reason; but who can look at those millions of worlds and not feel that there may well be wonderful universes above us where reason is utterly unreasonable?"...

"No," said the other priest; "reason is always reasonable, even in the last limbo, in the lost borderland of things. I know that people charge the Church with lowering reason, but it is just the other way. Alone on earth, the Church makes reason really supreme. Alone on earth, the Church affirms that God himself is bound by reason."

The other priest raised his austere face to the spangled sky and said:

"Yet who knows if in that infinite universe--?"

"Only infinite physically," said the little priest, turning sharply in his seat, "not infinite in the sense of escaping from the laws of truth."

"Reason and justice grip the remotest and the loneliest star. Look at those stars. Don't they look as if they were single diamonds and sapphires? Well, you can imagine any mad botany or geology you please. Think of forests of adamant with leaves of brilliants. Think the moon is a blue moon, a single elephantine sapphire. But don't fancy that all that frantic astronomy would make the smallest difference to the reason and justice of conduct. On plains of opal, under cliffs cut out of pearl, you would still find a notice-board, `Thou shalt not steal.'"

[alatar]

Interesting.

Just a quick comment on the "Blue Cross" as quoted by davem. Surely thoug shall not steal...

Unless, of course, thou children are starving.

My point is that, morality, like some physical laws of the universe, is relative.

[littlemanpoet]

But you're still defining 'miracles' as things which are inexplicable in terms of natural law, when we haven't actually set the parameters of natural law. Where, exactly, are you setting the dividing line between natural & supernatural - & what's your justification for setting it there as opposed to elsewhere?

Now, if you were saying that the fact that there is something rather than nothing is a 'miracle', that the sun shines on the grass, & every blade is both similar to & unique from every other, that there are sunsets & mountains, that I can experience all of those things - that all those things are 'miracles' (even the fact that there are natural laws which apply in every part of the Universe) I'd struggle to argue with the point, but to say that 'X' can't be explained by current scientific thinking, therefore it (& it alone) is a 'miracle' seems a bit limiting. The whole thing is a miracle, not just the bits we can't explain - what you're calling a 'miracle' I'd just call inexplicable.
Okay, I agree with what I've bolded above. Still, there are distinctions that can be made and have been since at least the first century of the modern era; namely, between body, soul, and spirit. The three cannot in reality be disentangled from each other save by death (an ultimately unnatural event according to my beliefs). However, we're capable of distinguishing from them by their character. Body is matter which I really need not explain any more than that, I hope. Soul is mind, will, emotions, and all that which is part and parcel of the psyche. Spirit is that part of reality that is hardest to define, describe, explain, et cetera.

Spirit seems to be most easily described by means of metaphor and story. Thus, I point out a few primary instances of spirit from Tolkien: (1) Tom Bombadil and the Barrowdowns incident; (2) Weathertop; (3) the Bridge of Khazad-dum; (4) Frodo atop the Hill of Seeing.

There are other examples of spirit but they bear a greater admixture of psyche: (1) the Noldoran Elves in the Shire; (2) the flight at the Fords of Bruinen; (3) the mirror of Galadriel; (4) Shelob's lair; (5) Sam appearing as an Elf to the Orcs; (6) the struggle for the Ring at Mount Doom.

Read these passages with the idea of Spirit in mind as opposed to Soul, and perhaps you will perceive what I'm trying to convey.

[davem]

Interesting.

Just a quick comment on the "Blue Cross" as quoted by davem. Surely thoug shall not steal...

Unless, of course, thou children are starving.

My point is that, morality, like some physical laws of the universe, is relative.

I don't know that Moral values are 'relative'. If your children are starving that is a sure sign that you are living in an immoral society. In such a case I don't think that taking what you need, if there was no other way, would be 'stealing' as such (one could argue that the real 'thieves' were the ones who kept the food from your children & that you were taking what you had a right to).

[Nogrod]

Still, there are distinctions that can be made and have been since at least the first century of the modern era; namely, between body, soul, and spirit. The three cannot in reality be disentangled from each other save by death (an ultimately unnatural event according to my beliefs). However, we're capable of distinguishing from them by their character. Body is matter which I really need not explain any more than that, I hope. Soul is mind, will, emotions, and all that which is part and parcel of the psyche. Spirit is that part of reality that is hardest to define, describe, explain, et cetera.


This distinction is to be found from all over the world, and it is seems to be present also in the very old shamanistic cultures too. So let's speak about 10 000 + (maybe more than 20 000) years instead of the first century? Some people have attached the idea to the curios fact of dreaming during the sleep (remember f.ex. Australian aboriginals' notion of a Dreamtime as a basic metaphysical reality etc.). So there is the physical me here and now, my thoughts and ideas and mental presence in the world (soul) and then this "spirit" that goes to its wanderings when I sleep, that kind of is a part of me, and then isn't.

But the age of a belief certainly is not any proof of it being right... ;)

[Glaurung]

Still babbling about Gollum... Of course it sounds stupid that Gollum would be a deux ex machina, but doesn't it sound weird that such a story as LotR ends when a skinny little creature just slips into the Mount Doom and that's it? ;)

[littlemanpoet]

This distinction is to be found from all over the world, and it is seems to be present also in the very old shamanistic cultures too. So let's speak about 10 000 + (maybe more than 20 000) years instead of the first century? Some people have attached the idea to the curios fact of dreaming during the sleep (remember f.ex. Australian aboriginals' notion of a Dreamtime as a basic metaphysical reality etc.). So there is the physical me here and now, my thoughts and ideas and mental presence in the world (soul) and then this "spirit" that goes to its wanderings when I sleep, that kind of is a part of me, and then isn't.I guess I was referring to the knowledge of such distinctions within western civilization, with which we are most familiar and have the most history. But yes, you are quite right about the shamanistic traditions. We North Americans find the indigenous spirituality of native Americans to be quite a strikingly powerful and beautiful tradition when we take it on its own terms. Personally, I always find native American references to "the Great Spirit" to be breathtakingly refreshing. But that is an aside.
But the age of a belief certainly is not any proof of it being right...Nor its opposite. ;)

[davem]

Of course, the Music drives the world in a certain specific direction. Because of this is it not possible for any individual to 'divert' the course of destiny to any real degree. It is possible that (within M-e at least) what has been called a Deus ex Machina is simply the force of the Music exerting a kind of 'gravitational pull' on individuals/events.

The Ring is 'fated' or 'destined' to go into the Fire, so Gollum is 'pulled' in along with it by 'natural law' (well, the Ring is 'destined' to go into the Fire because Sauron is not destined to win, & the only way to ensure his defeat is to destroy the Ring. Hence, Sauron's defeat & the destruction of the Ring will happen, it just has to be brought about somehow, by someone within the world, because the Music works out within the world. The Quest is one way in which this could have been brought about - & probably the one that would result in the least suffering, or maybe the one that would produce the 'best results, for all concerned)

This 'force' is inexorable, but does not take away individual freedom completely. Individuals can effect change for good or ill, but only within the parameters set by Aunilindale.

If I'm correct then Deus ex Machina events would be necessary, 'miracles' as such would be the universe being pulled back into its predetermined course, almost as if the universe spontaneously produces 'antibodies' to fight a disease.

[littlemanpoet]

The determinism you present, dear sir, just doesn't seem in keeping with my reading of LotR. May I suggest that trying to get an 'inexorable force' and 'individual freedom' to square with each other in any logical way is an exercise in futility. Best to leave the paradox in all of its realities in the balance that we find it in real life as well as in really good fantasy. But hey, if you like exercises in futility, have at it! ;)

[alatar]

Interesting POV, davem, but somehow the universe that you posit seems contradictory. If an event is fated, which I can accept in ME, then D E M would not be necessary. If the Ring is doomed to go into the Fire, despite everyone's best efforts for or against, then why would divine intervention be required for the Ring to hit the flames?

Unless we assume that the original song, sung by the Divine, is the machine that stomps along, plowing through both mountain and plain, achieving the straight and narrow way desired by the creator, that is.

My interpretation of D E M is where things will go against the plan, down into chaos, unless the god intervenes and sets the world back on the god's path. Then there are more minor interventions where the god tweaks.

A cool tweak is seen in The Clash of the Titans (1981) where Zeus sets the fallen Perseus figurine back on his feet when the hero needs a little boost on his way to fight the Kraken and save Princess Andromeda.

[Legolas]

It is incorrect and ironic to consider the eagles' rescuing episode to be a case of deus ex machina (as presented). To dismiss it as a literary device present only to 'save the story' is to ignore the nature of Tolkien's fictional history.

It is not a literary device deus ex machina, but a literal deus ex machina - a literal act of God. The eagles are not a symbolical representation of God (or anything else) - they literally are sent from God (or actually his regent, in this case). That was the entire point.

Frodo, the Fellowship, and all of 'good' Middle-earth could not win it alone - yet they continued in faith, and in the end, a higher power carried them the rest of the way. (This is a concept taught in Christianity as well.)

Letter No. 183
In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination.

The definition presented in the first post says that a deus ex machina is "any resolution to a story which does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic." The eagles' appearance is not against the story's internal logic. It actually follows the internal logic of the story, and is at the very essence of the story's focus (addressed above). In addition to the Eagles' appearance in The Lord of the Rings, the army of the Valar save the day in the War of Wrath; the Eagles save Maedhros with Fingon; the Eagles save Húrin and Huor, bringing them safely to Gondolinl; the Eagles save Beren and Luthien, bringing them safely to Doriath; and the Eagles overturn the Battle of Five Armies.

"Of the Return of the Noldor," The Silmarillion:

Maedhros therefore, being in anguish without hope, begged Fingon to shoot him with his bow; and Fingon strung an arrow, and bent his bow. And seeing no better hope he cried to Manwë, saying: 'O King to whom all birds are dear, speed now this feathered shaft, and recall some pity for the Noldor in their need!'
His prayer was answered swiftly. For Manwë to whom all birds are dear, and to whom they bring news upon Taniquetil from Middle-earth, had sent forth the race of Eagles, commanding them to dwell in the crags of the North, and to keep watch upon Morgoth; for Manwë still had pity for the exiled Elves. And the Eagles brought news of much that passed in those days to the sad ears of Manwë. Now, even as Fingon bent his bow, there flew down from the high airs Thorondor, King of Eagles, mightiest of all birds that have ever been, whose outstretched wings spanned thirty fathoms; and staying Fingon's hand he took him up, and bore him to the face of the rock where Maedhros hung. But Fingon could not release the hell-wrought bond upon his wrist, nor sever it, nor draw it from the stone. Again therefore in his pain Maedhros begged that he would slay him; but Fingon cut off his hand above the wrist, and Thorondor bore them back to Mithrim.

[Bêthberry]

It is incorrect and ironic to consider the eagles' rescuing episode to be a case of deus ex machina (as presented). To dismiss it as a literary device present only to 'save the story' is to ignore the nature of Tolkien's fictional history.

It is not a literary device deus ex machina, but a literal deus ex machina - a literal act of God. The eagles are not a symbolical representation of God (or anything else) - they literally are sent from God (or actually his regent, in this case). That was the entire point.



Umm, don't you mean "act of Eru" and "sent by Eru"? Or well, that person who is responsible for the music but who isn't directly named, who is conspicuous by his absence from LotR?

[Legolas]

Eru is God of Ea. I simply continued to use "God" to further emphasize that he is The God of Ea.

Or well, that person who is responsible for the music but who isn't directly named, who is conspicuous by his absence from LotR?

I don't know exactly what you mean - feel free to be explicit - but I am speaking as the story is a continuous one in which the author need not reintroduce characters in each episode.

[Bêthberry]

Eru is God of Ea. I simply continued to use "God" to further emphasize that he is The God of Ea.


Quote:
Or well, that person who is responsible for the music but who isn't directly named, who is conspicuous by his absence from LotR?



I don't know exactly what you mean - feel free to be explicit - but I am speaking as the story is a continuous one in which the author need not reintroduce characters in each episode.


It is not a literary device deus ex machina, but a literal deus ex machina - a literal act of God. The eagles are not a symbolical representation of God (or anything else) - they literally are sent from God (or actually his regent, in this case). That was the entire point.

Frodo, the Fellowship, and all of 'good' Middle-earth could not win it alone - yet they continued in faith, and in the end, a higher power carried them the rest of the way. (This is a concept taught in Christianity as well.)


Deary me. Is the aura being too cryptic?

Thanks for your comment, Legolas. I think we need to be careful about several points in the discussion.

We need to be careful in discussing LotR within the context of other texts such as The Silm, especially since The Silm we have was produced by another hand and even HoMe, which attempts to 'get back to' Tolkien's original text, is a postumous text. LotR does not present Eru, the valar, etc as explicitly as The Silm does. Tolkien chose a different kind of text and style for TH sequel than he used in his private papers about his Legendarium; Tokien hints rather than states directly; to infer the continuity is to make readerly acts, to take up the hints and veiled references which, for most readers, are to a tantalizing half-glimpsed idea. (This leads to another thread possibly: Why did Tolkien write LotR with such veiled allusions to his Legendarium? Why did he excise explicit naming of Eru and leave readers only with songs and characters' half-remembered stories?) It is not incorrect to make these connections, but it should be clear that the acts are acts of interpretation and connection, interpelating one of Tolkien's texts more explicity into another, rather than an explicit statement in the text.

Also, to use the word "God"--and to capitalise it (the Latin deux ex machina is not capitalised)-- especially in the context of a passage which refers to Christianity--gives rise to confusion between the primary world and the sub-created world. Yes, there are enough allusions and signifiers for readers to see Tolkien's faith in LotR--many of us can see the allusions to Galadriel as Queen of Heaven--but Tolkien choose not to make that an explicit writerly act. His text is a marvellously subtle, tantalizingly complex one which invites comparisons and deductions and conclusion but which doesn't make them explicit--applicability. To state directly that the eagles are sent by God is to make the kind of readerly interpretation Tolkien may have invited, but it is wise to respect his wonderfully elusive and allusive style and not imply it is as ploddingly obvious as, for example, Lewis's. I think it actually demeems that applicability, lessens the excitment of the text, lessens the very eucatastrophic nature of the story, to reduce it to "they literally are sent from God (or actually his regent, in this case)."

[alatar]

Very nice post Bêthberry.


Tolkien chose a different kind of text and style for TH sequel than he used in his private papers about his Legendarium; Tokien hints rather than states directly; to infer the continuity is to make readerly acts, to take up the hints and veiled references which, for most readers, are to a tantalizing half-glimpsed idea.
Could it be that he played to the psychological need for discovery (not sure that this actually exists, and so far my searches have proved fruitless, but I would guess that it's real)? You know, the desire to find out what's out there, in there, over there, under there, etc. Isn't there a thrill when you first meet someone unique and cool, or start reading a book that's a real page-turner, or hear a song that makes you stop and think? The adrenaline levels may vary, but they are examples of moments when you think: Hey, I need to look into him/her/this/that a little more. You get in gear, engaged as it were, and start digging.

M-Y-S-T-E-R-Y.

Don't you just hate it when, at the end of a book, everything is just wrapped up ever so neatly and conveniently, and nothing is left to ponder? Isn't this the reason for d e m, to fill in the plot holes and finish off the story lines?

Discovery. Wonder.

Tolkien, in LotR, gives us a glimpse at times that there's more to Middle Earth than just the book in our hands. In the Appendices (added in subsequent publishing because readers wanted to know more?) more of the story is given, but even that is just a teasing draught from the sea of material. The more you explore, the greater your rewards. You still have to dig, as it's not all laid out. And even better, the additional material is (mostly) consistent and valid across the whole. The letters mor signify something dark or black (Moria, Mordor, Moriquendi, etc), whether they're seen in the First or Third Age. Other authors cobble together appendices or additional stories, but these are hacks, not part of nor grown from the whole. Your exploration is put off as it's all a cheap facade, not the real deal archeology of Tolkien's works.

So again, as I've stated before, we never get to read about Eru, but occasionally see large fingerprints in LotR, and get the pleasure of playing CSI:ME.

[Lalwendë]

Don't you just hate it when, at the end of a book, everything is just wrapped up ever so neatly and conveniently, and nothing is left to ponder? Isn't this the reason for d e m, to fill in the plot holes and finish off the story lines?

Discovery. Wonder.

Tolkien, in LotR, gives us a glimpse at times that there's more to Middle Earth than just the book in our hands. In the Appendices (added in subsequent publishing because readers wanted to know more?) more of the story is given, but even that is just a teasing draught from the sea of material. The more you explore, the greater your rewards. You still have to dig, as it's not all laid out. And even better, the additional material is (mostly) consistent and valid across the whole. The letters mor signify something dark or black (Moria, Mordor, Moriquendi, etc), whether they're seen in the First or Third Age. Other authors cobble together appendices or additional stories, but these are hacks, not part of nor grown from the whole. Your exploration is put off as it's all a cheap facade, not the real deal archeology of Tolkien's works.

So again, as I've stated before, we never get to read about Eru, but occasionally see large fingerprints in LotR, and get the pleasure of playing CSI:ME.

Far from having to cobble something together, I think if anything Tolkien wanted the Appendices to be longer! There was a significant delay in publishing as he found it so difficult to cut down the information he wanted to include there. He also was not happy that every edition did not include appendices - there is some interesting info on this is the Scull/Hammond Readers' Companion.

I often read LotR as being in some ways an unfinished tale. Frodo sails for the West, but there is that evocative passage which hints at yet more:

And the ship went out into the High Sea and passed on into the West, until at last on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise.

I feel so frustrated that I cannot follow Frodo to this new land and discover it with him in the same way I discovered Middle-earth. This way of rounding off Frodo's story may have allowed Tolkien not to have to 'kill' him off, it may or may not be a DEM, but either way, it leaves me feeling flipping frustrated, as though I've been left behind, unwanted on this voyage, while at the same time I feel utterly enchanted...

[JennyHallu]

I feel so frustrated that I cannot follow Frodo to this new land and discover it with him in the same way I discovered Middle-earth. This way of rounding off Frodo's story may have allowed Tolkien not to have to 'kill' him off, it may or may not be a DEM, but either way, it leaves me feeling flipping frustrated, as though I've been left behind, unwanted on this voyage, while at the same time I feel utterly enchanted...

Yet when I read this passage, I find only hope and promise. It isn't that we have been left behind, it is that our tasks, unlike Frodo's, are not yet finished. I think the most basic reason for Frodo's departure is that Tolkien wanted to let us leave Frodo without worrying about him.

But it's hardly a DEM...think of how often the idea of refuge in the West after long labor is brought up: Legolas' longing for the sea, Aragorns' mourning for the loss of Atalantë, the mystery of Gandalf's origin in the West, the stories (told fairly early in the story) of Ëarendil's journey to Aman. Both the Elves and Men have the same story: A land of milk and honey which they were forced to leave through their own willingness to break rather minimal rules, by the temptation of an evil figure. The fact that Frodo is allowed to return to the West is the ultimate full circle, and reflects Tolkien's religious philosophy. After long labor, and extreme self-sacrifice and bravery, we can return. The West is not lost.

[alatar]

Far from having to cobble something together, I think if anything Tolkien wanted the Appendices to be longer!
Note that when I refer to cobbling, I meant other, lesser authors such as Robert Jordan of WoT fame. And *I* want the Appendices, the books etc to be at least 5000 pages longer.


I feel so frustrated that I cannot follow Frodo to this new land and discover it with him in the same way I discovered Middle-earth. This way of rounding off Frodo's story may have allowed Tolkien not to have to 'kill' him off, it may or may not be a DEM, but either way, it leaves me feeling flipping frustrated, as though I've been left behind, unwanted on this voyage, while at the same time I feel utterly enchanted...
But there has to be some end, and as I stated before, some of the best writing lets you ponder a bit.

[Essex]

this story is about Middle-earth, not about the Undying Lands.

for me, lotr has the most perfect ending I've ever read in a book. There is a sense of closure, the job's been done, but some cannot be healed here in ME so must travel on the Straight Road to find healing before they die.

Frodo says goodbye to his friends, and we travel back with Sam and finish the tale from his point of view. And why not, as a lot of people think Sam is the real hero of LOTR.....

Hang on, what has THIS got to do with D E M?????!!!!!! :p

[Lalwendë]

Hang on, what has THIS got to do with D E M?????!!!!!! :p

I'm just asking if it could possibly be seen as one. I know that I certainly don't see it that way, and I'm sure nobody on the Downs would, either, but some may see it as a rather 'convenient' end for Frodo. If we think about it, mortals are not allowed to make that trip, and there have been many courageous mortals, so why are Frodo, Bilbo and Sam allowed to make it?

I think Tolkien would have baulked at killing off these three Hobbits in any case, but might some see that as reason for this ending being a DEM?

Again, I'm not saying that this is what I think at all, as i find it a perfect ending; I'm just posing the question of whether it has the hallmarks of a DEM?

I would say that many aspects not just of Tolkien but of fantasy, sci-fi and horror in general could be dismissed as DEMs, when instead, they are just 'magic' or the fantastic.