Gollum and Eagles: Deux ex machina?

[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.

"They weren't," says Doug*Platypus.

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?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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

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

No! NO! 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]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

No! NO! 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.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by alatar

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]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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)

[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]

Originally Posted by alatar

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?

................................
________
MFLB

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Essex

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.