OOTS #806 - The Discussion Thread

[faustin]

Grappled? I guess it's worth provoking a shot to shrink the breastplate this guy is wearing...

"Shrink shorts".. one of my favorites, with "Flesh to Stone" (to the woman who is actually making love with a guy, an a very Pigmalion-Galatea fashion) and "Freeze" ( aimed to the guy who is pissing against a wall). Magic is fun!

[factotum]

A succubus' flight has always been non-magical according to the SRD

And again, according to the SRD a wizard who casts Fly can only carry up to their normal maximum load, and yet we see Zz'dtri carrying Hilgya--so either he's pumped a lot of points into Strength, or else the strip does not follow the SRD to the letter. I think it's a lot easier to assume that OotS Fly = ability to carry much more than usual and that Celia and Sabine use a spell-like ability that works in a similar way than to assume that they're all just really, really strong!

(Oh, and you might note that Goblins and Sylphs in the SRD are small-sized, not Medium--Celia and Redcloak should both be Belkar's size. This is another proof that the strip does not slavishly follow the rules).

[martianmister]

No! Sabine has an opinion, then Nale tells her that he thinks she is wrong. Sabine is not stating a definitive fact that Nale then changes. Sabine would have seen Nale buy the wand! She knows it exists. She simply isn't taking it into her estimation because she is not as smart as Nale is.

That's some interesting fact about Sabine and Nale's relationship.

[brionl]

Or as the Giant said as has been indicated in the comic, Durkon is not done researching "Mass Death Ward". There are still some kinks to work out, and he probably needs to Commune with Thor to get that spell available.

Durkon said in #805 it's not finished. "Workin' out tha last few details o' spell research." Obviously one of the details is letting Thor know what exactly he wants.

[Sunken Valley]

Wow, is this the most times Rich has posted in a discussion thread? I applaude you Mr Giant. Every post you create makes everyone sleep well knowing that you are okay.

[jere7my]

Just to make myself crystal clear, allow me to give you an example of a notorious, blatant deus ex: in the "Odyssey", at about the end of it, we have Athena suddenly appearing and transforming Ulysses into an old-aged beggar, so that he could safely infiltrate his mansion at Ithaca perfectly unnoticed and undetected by the hordes of his enemies. Sure, someone could come and argue "How is it a DE for a high-level goddess to use magic?"

I just chatted with my wife (the classics professor) about this, and she came down vehemently against calling this a deux ex machina, for the following reasons:

1. It's an example of what she called "double determination." That means that Athena is really doing something Odysseus is perfectly capable of doing for himself; to the Greek mind, the distinction between "Athena did it for him" and "Using the cleverness granted him by Athena, he did it for himself" is moot. Athena is both an independent actor and a personification of Odysseus's inner talents.
2. Odysseus earned Athena's notice by being consistently clever throughout the rest of the story. She's the goddess of cleverness, and he is the living embodiment of cleverness; it's part of the moral equation of the genre that those who honor the gods get help from the gods.
3. Along similar lines, Athena had already been helping Odysseus at various points throughout the Odyssey; she didn't come out of nowhere to assist him. She'd been established as his ally long before.
4. Finally, it's not a deus ex machina because it doesn't resolve the dilemma. It grants Odysseus a path into the dilemma, at which point he resolves it himself. A deus ex machina only pertains when someone has written themselves into a corner from which no extrication is possible.

If you want a canonical example, the ending of Medea will probably serve you better.

(Apologies to my wife if I mangled any of her arguments.)

[Scrynor]

Yeah, agreed. I didn't want to start a whole different argument about what a bunch of people typically use as a go-to example though. But yeah, it lacks the total resolution/salvation I think of as necessary. I never thought about the inherent link between Odys and Athena based on the trait of cleverness and how she was with him all along though. That's pretty cool stuff. It makes me think of early Russian film.

If you just step away from the Greeks though Lord of the Flies is pretty much the go-to example in a modern work that most people are familiar. ...Right?

[Mantine]

I originally intended to let things fade, but I think that at least to this I have to respond.

I just chatted with my wife (the classics professor) about this, and she came down vehemently against calling this a deux ex machina, for the following reasons:

[LIST=1][*]It's an example of what she called "double determination." That means that Athena is really doing something Odysseus is perfectly capable of doing for himself; to the Greek mind, the distinction between "Athena did it for him" and "Using the cleverness granted him by Athena, he did it for himself" is moot. Athena is both an independent actor and a personification of Odysseus's inner talents.[*]Odysseus earned Athena's notice by being consistently clever throughout the rest of the story. She's the goddess of cleverness, and he is the living embodiment of cleverness; it's part of the moral equation of the genre that those who honor the gods get help from the gods.

To the Greek mind there may not be a distinction, but to the modern, everyday mind there sure is.
To answer your first point, "something he is perfectly capable of doing for himself". Yes, like?
In what other ways he could've pulled such a perfect play upon his enemies?
Sounds a tad bit too vague if you ask me, and the whole "it's his cleverness that granted him someone else's cleverness" rings close to an excuse.
I mean no offence though, this is just my opinion.

To address the second, even if Ulysses were so clever to earn the respect of the goddess of cleverness, it's her *action* onto the problem that still and undoubtly immensely eased his problem.
I don't see how the whole "he earned it" thing negates the fact that Athena came and gave a fundamental help to his crusade. If I were to pray before of a battle and then, on the brink of defeat, God suddenly came down the clouds and curbstomped my enemies, that wouldn't have been a DE because I "earned" it?

Along similar lines, Athena had already been helping Odysseus at various points throughout the Odyssey; she didn't come out of nowhere to assist him. She'd been established as his ally long before.

Same as before: had I been talking to God a few times before of said battle, it wouldn't have been a deus ex?
Being an established ally doesn't mean much: DE's doesn't have to be "una tantum".

Besides, she literally appears out of thin air. If that's not "coming out of nowhere" I don't know what it is

Finally, it's not a deus ex machina because it doesn't resolve the dilemma. It grants Odysseus a path into the dilemma, at which point he resolves it himself. A deus ex machina only pertains when someone has written themselves into a corner from which no extrication is possible.

The dilemma was him being unable to safely plot his moves since his house had been occupied by enemies who would've teamed and assassinated him the moment he were to show up.
Athena grants him the perfect disguise to pass such problem, and it's from THERE that the makes his path through to resolve his OTHER dilemma: taking it all back.
But alone he could've never, ever, marched with such safety within such dangerous territory. It was Athena that granted him the rock-solid position on which build his trap, base that alone he couldn't have conquered.

Had God descended and given me a panzer tank, it would have still been a DE, even if I'd be the one who actually pulled the trigger and smithered my enemies with it.

Honestly, I believe said notions of what constitutes a Deus Ex Machina to be arcaic at best. What may have been right back in old Greece could no longer ring true now: time passes, literature evolves, things change in their perception.
The nowaday's term doesn't need such an "utter, absolute hopelessness where everything is lost and the sun clouds in darkness" for a DE to exist.
If we were to always absolutely need such extreme premises, there would have never been a deus ex since... well, ever. Name me one if you disagree.

Damn, this came far too longer than I wanted.

[jere7my]

To the Greek mind there may not be a distinction, but to the modern, everyday mind there sure is. To answer your first point, "something he is perfectly capable of doing for himself". Yes, like?
In what other ways he could've pulled such a perfect play upon his enemies?

He disguised himself as a beggar. It's not that hard. There are hundreds of examples of people doing that without divine help (see Robin Hood, Superman). Did Odysseus put on a perfect disguise, or did Athena cast a spell on him? Was Homer being literal when he said Athena helped him, or poetic?

You can't read the Odyssey outside of its cultural context and really understand what's going on. To the ancient Greeks, the line was very blurry between the gods and the things they personified. There's not much difference between "the goddess of cleverness helped you out" and "you were clever." Double determination is a literary technique, a way of acknowledging that people who achieve great things are doing so with the gifts the gods granted them. It's the same situation if Ares comes down to help a great general — is that really a god out there kicking butt, or is it a poetic way of saying the general is so ridiculously good at war that the god of war must be on his side? What's the difference?

To address the second, even if Ulysses were so clever to earn the respect of the goddess of cleverness, it's her *action* onto the problem that still and undoubtly immensely eased his problem.
I don't see how the whole "he earned it" thing negates the fact that Athena came and gave a fundamental help to his crusade. If I were to pray before of a battle and then, on the brink of defeat, God suddenly came down the clouds and curbstomped my enemies, that wouldn't have been a DE because I "earned" it?

That depends on whether the interventions of the gods are part of the expected toolset a character has. Would you have a problem with, say, a grizzled veteran saying to the young hero, "If you live up to my expectations, I'll be there for you when you need me," then showing up in the nick of time at the end of the story (assuming the hero has proved his virtue)? Of course not. That's Han Solo — he was won over by the purity of Luke's and Leia's devotion to the Rebel cause. The hero's success is defined by staying true to his code; that's how he earns the help. It's the same thing here — Odysseus, by honoring Athena through his cleverness, pleases her, thus earning her assistance now and again.

All of this is embedded in the premise of the Odyssey. Athena helping out a clever man is as natural to an ancient Greek as Superman being able to fly is to us. If you're a Kryptonian on Earth, you can fly; if you're the cleverest man who ever lived, you can expect help from Athena. It's just the way the world works.

The nowaday's term doesn't need such an "utter, absolute hopelessness where everything is lost and the sun clouds in darkness" for a DE to exist. If we were to always absolutely need such extreme premises, there would have never been a deus ex since... well, ever. Name me one if you disagree.

Medea escaping in the chariot of the Sun. It's only a deus ex machina if the author has written himself into a corner from which the only possible exit is divine intervention — which then conveniently arrives. If Athena's occasional gifts have already been established as something Odysseus has earned (by being the cleverest trickster ever to live), then her granting him one is hardly a deus ex machina, by any standards.

[Shoelessgdowar]

He disguised himself as a beggar. It's not that hard. There are hundreds of examples of people doing that without divine help (see Robin Hood, Superman). Did Odysseus put on a perfect disguise, or did Athena cast a spell on him? Was Homer being literal when he said Athena helped him, or poetic?

You can't read the Odyssey outside of its cultural context and really understand what's going on. To the ancient Greeks, the line was very blurry between the gods and the things they personified. There's not much difference between "the goddess of cleverness helped you out" and "you were clever." Double determination is a literary technique, a way of acknowledging that people who achieve great things are doing so with the gifts the gods granted them. It's the same situation if Ares comes down to help a great general — is that really a god out there kicking butt, or is it a poetic way of saying the general is so ridiculously good at war that the god of war must be on his side? What's the difference?



That depends on whether the interventions of the gods are part of the expected toolset a character has. Would you have a problem with, say, a grizzled veteran saying to the young hero, "If you live up to my expectations, I'll be there for you when you need me," then showing up in the nick of time at the end of the story (assuming the hero has proved his virtue)? Of course not. That's Han Solo — he was won over by the purity of Luke's and Leia's devotion to the Rebel cause. The hero's success is defined by staying true to his code; that's how he earns the help. It's the same thing here — Odysseus, by honoring Athena through his cleverness, pleases her, thus earning her assistance now and again.

All of this is embedded in the premise of the Odyssey. Athena helping out a clever man is as natural to an ancient Greek as Superman being able to fly is to us. If you're a Kryptonian on Earth, you can fly; if you're the cleverest man who ever lived, you can expect help from Athena. It's just the way the world works.



Medea escaping in the chariot of the Sun. It's only a deus ex machina if the author has written himself into a corner from which the only possible exit is divine intervention — which then conveniently arrives. If Athena's occasional gifts have already been established as something Odysseus has earned (by being the cleverest trickster ever to live), then her granting him one is hardly a deus ex machina, by any standards.

Please tell your wife I appreciate an expert backing up my erudite layman conjecture, as while I'm well read in Greek Mythology (and basically said the same stuff about Odysseus' disguise several posts back), it is nice to know I was right in my interpretation.

[Warren Dew]

That depends on whether the interventions of the gods are part of the expected toolset a character has.

Indeed. And if they are not, then the cure spell Durkon cast qualifies as a "deus ex machina".

Medea escaping in the chariot of the Sun.

I'm not certain I agree, as it was preestablished that Medea was his granddaughter. Someone lending a chariot to a grandaughter seems reasonable to me.

It's also to be noted that in that case, it's Medea, not a god, who gets to use the machine.

[Mantine]

He disguised himself as a beggar. It's not that hard. There are hundreds of examples of people doing that without divine help (see Robin Hood, Superman). Did Odysseus put on a perfect disguise, or did Athena cast a spell on him? Was Homer being literal when he said Athena helped him, or poetic?

Spell. In every single iterations i've know of, always a spell.
It's not like Athena came down the sky just to to tell him "oh, by the way, why not donning some pitch and look older?", that would've been ridiculous, expecially if he was already so "clever" himself.

It's the same situation if Ares comes down to help a great general — is that really a god out there kicking butt, or is it a poetic way of saying the general is so ridiculously good at war that the god of war must be on his side? What's the difference?

One case is a simple comparison to an abstract highness, the other an actual physical deus ex machina.

That depends on whether the interventions of the gods are part of the expected toolset a character has. Would you have a problem with, say, a grizzled veteran saying to the young hero, "If you live up to my expectations, I'll be there for you when you need me," then showing up in the nick of time at the end of the story (assuming the hero has proved his virtue)? Of course not. That's Han Solo — he was won over by the purity of Luke's and Leia's devotion to the Rebel cause. The hero's success is defined by staying true to his code; that's how he earns the help. It's the same thing here — Odysseus, by honoring Athena through his cleverness, pleases her, thus earning her assistance now and again.

I'm not even nearly convinced, having earned it in some ways doesn't change an act of such utter, supreme help in not being a deus ex.

Medea escaping in the chariot of the Sun. It's only a deus ex machina if the author has written himself into a corner from which the only possible exit is divine intervention — which then conveniently arrives. If Athena's occasional gifts have already been established as something Odysseus has earned (by being the cleverest trickster ever to live), then her granting him one is hardly a deus ex machina, by any standards.

"Nowadays" being the key phrase of my request, Medea doesn't qualify.
Either you point me out a recent (as in, non centuries old) case of "absolute hopelessness with no possible redemption, ever" of a deus ex, or either recognize that the term has long since changed in its meaning, and that nowadays such extreme utter desperation is no longer needed for one to exist.

Let's face it: "the author has written himself into a corner from which the only possible exit is divine intervention" is an outdated definition.
To the modern term, it just has to be a difficult situation solved through external, cheap, arbitrary means.

[jere7my]

Spell. In every single iterations i've know of, always a spell.

Not in the two examples I posted (Superman and Robin Hood). Or any of the literally hundreds of examples of fictional characters disguising themselves improbably well to fool their enemies (or even people who've known them for years).

One case is a simple comparison to an abstract highness, the other an actual physical deus ex machina.

You're missing (certainly you're not addressing) my point. To the mind of an ancient Greek, the distinction between them is not as clear as that. Divine assistance was a part of everyday life, and a poetic way of expressing that was to say that a god appeared to help out. If Odysseus had flown away (like Medea), you might have a point, but he didn't; he just put on a disguise.

I'm not even nearly convinced, having earned it in some ways doesn't change an act of such utter, supreme help in not being a deus ex.

All righty then. But you've progressed from addressing my points to saying you don't agree, with no justification. All I could do at this point is repeat myself.

Either you point me out a recent (as in, non centuries old) case of "absolute hopelessness with no possible redemption, ever" of a deus ex, or either recognize that the term has long since changed in its meaning, and that nowadays such extreme utter desperation is no longer needed for one to exist.

Gwaihir and Deus Ex Machina Airlines at the end of LotR. (I'm aware that this is an ongoing fannish argument, and there are various reasons proposed for why Gwaihir couldn't just fly the Ring to Mount Doom himself. There will always be arguments about any given deus ex machina, but I think this is a fine example of the form. It was even referenced in Bored of the Rings.)

Let's face it: "the author has written himself into a corner from which the only possible exit is divine intervention" is an outdated definition. To the modern term, it just has to be a difficult situation solved through external, cheap, arbitrary means.

You are welcome to use the term in any way you like, provided you don't mind being wrong.

EDIT: That was perhaps a bit intemperate. What I should have said was:

Whenever there is a technical term that has developed a broader, debased meaning, there are always going to be conflicts over the "correct" usage of the term. And while I appreciate the democratizing impulse that goes into that process, I think "deus ex machina" has become so broad that it is almost meaningless, used to cover every situation in which an author hasn't explicitly foreshadowed something that saves the heroes' butts. For some people — and I'm not saying you're one — everything that isn't a Chekhov's gun (another wildly overused term) is a deus ex machina. That attitude limits what authors can do, by forcing them to stiffly telegraph everything that might happen. For that reason, I prefer to use deus ex machina in a very specific, limited way, and use something like "That was dramatically unsatisfying" or "That wasn't set up very well" most of the time.

[zimmerwald1915]

Let's face it: "the author has written himself into a corner from which the only possible exit is divine intervention" is an outdated definition.
To the modern term, it just has to be a difficult situation solved through external, cheap, arbitrary means.

It's also a precise definition that has meaning. What is "external, cheap, and arbitrary" is bound to be highly contested in every conceivable application of this "modern" definition. As evidence one needs look no further than the debates over the meaning of deus ex in this thread or on this forum more broadly. The only reason the "outdated" definition could be considered as such is because "modern" critics don't like saying "divine intervention," and thus resort to flimsy restatements of the phrase that contain little actual content.

[Mantine]

Not in the two examples I posted (Superman and Robin Hood). Or any of the literally hundreds of examples of fictional characters disguising themselves improbably well to fool their enemies (or even people who've known them for years).

Let's not be deflecting now, you asked about Athena's case, I answered accordingly. Confusing a deus ex (spell) amidst thousands of normal (if hard to believe) disguise cases doesn't change it's state: the fact that a frigging divinity came down the sky to cast her godly magic on the hero.

All righty then. But you've progressed from addressing my points to saying you don't agree, with no justification. All I could do at this point is repeat myself.

What do you mean "no justification"?
Your argument and examples doesn't convince me. There's little more to say than that.

Gwaihir and Deus Ex Machina Airlines at the end of LotR. (I'm aware that this is an ongoing fannish argument, and there are various reasons proposed for why Gwaihir couldn't just fly the Ring to Mount Doom himself. There will always be arguments about any given deus ex machina, but I think this is a fine example of the form. It was even referenced in Bored of the Rings.)

Not much. It almost completely qualify in the whole "they earned their outside help" category, and it also was "an established ally".

Whenever there is a technical term that has developed a broader, debased meaning, there are always going to be conflicts over the "correct" usage of the term. And while I appreciate the democratizing impulse that goes into that process, I think "deus ex machina" has become so broad that it is almost meaningless, used to cover every situation in which an author hasn't explicitly foreshadowed something that saves the heroes' butts. For some people — and I'm not saying you're one — everything that isn't a Chekhov's gun (another wildly overused term) is a deus ex machina. That attitude limits what authors can do, by forcing them to stiffly telegraph everything that might happen. For that reason, I prefer to use deus ex machina in a very specific, limited way, and use something like "That was dramatically unsatisfying" or "That wasn't set up very well" most of the time.

But then, judging by those standards, Deus Ex Machina's stopped existing centuries ago.
I believe wiser to simply accept that the term has reached a broader and less constricted (even if more annoying and easily misused) definition, rather than simply forcing him dead for the sake of not accepting that things change with time.

[jere7my]

Let's not be deflecting now, you asked about Athena's case, I answered accordingly. Confusing a deus ex (spell) amidst thousands of normal (if hard to believe) disguise cases doesn't change it's state: the fact that a frigging divinity came down the sky to cast her godly magic on the hero.

I'll say this for a third time, and then stop: the fact that Homer said Athena came down and cast a spell does not mean that Athena literally came down and cast a spell. When Gandalf says Pity stayed Bilbo's hand, he does not mean the divine embodiment of Pity came down and intervened between Bilbo and Gollum. It's a poetic personification of an abstract concept. For the Greeks, all the gods were, at the same time, poetic personifications of abstract concepts and divine entities. If you read the Odyssey and the Iliad and assume every divine appearance is intended to be a literal god walking around, you are viewing the story through a distorted lens. When Athena grabs Achilles's tawny hair to restrain him, is it a literal divine intervention, or is that meant to say that Achilles's wisdom took command and stopped him from rushing in? The answer is: both. Double determination.

It would have been perfectly plausible for Odysseus to disguise himself, as evidenced by the hundreds of times other fictional characters have done the same. Therefore, there is no reason to interpret that episode as a literal divine intervention rather than an expression of Odysseus's innate trickster "Athena-ness". Eliminate Athena, and the story still works, because it works in other classic stories: Odysseus puts on a disguise just as Robin Hood put on a disguise. The fact that Homer says she came down and cast a spell does not mean Homer intended that literally, and to his contemporary audience that ambiguity would have been as natural as saying "You got here so quickly, Hermes must've helped you out!"

You're welcome to fold your arms and say "Homer said it, it's right there on the page, so it happened!" but that's not how scholars interpret what's going on there.

What do you mean "no justification"?

I mean you didn't give any reasons for your disagreement, you just stated it. Which is fine and all, but doesn't do anything to support your case.

Not much. It almost completely qualify in the whole "they earned their outside help" category, and it also was "an established ally".

But it raises the question of why they didn't just drop the ring in the volcano themselves.

But then, judging by those standards, Deus Ex Machina's stopped existing centuries ago.

As I said, there will always be arguments about any given deus ex machina. That doesn't mean they don't exist. The end of War of the Worlds. The rain at the end of David Lynch's Dune. The rain of frogs in Magnolia (a rare example of a modern deus ex machina used intentionally and well). You're going to nitpick any example I give, so I'll stop there.

[Mantine]

I'll say this for a third time, and then stop: the fact that Homer said Athena came down and cast a spell does not mean that Athena literally came down and cast a spell.

We already addressed this, and I already responded:

Spell. In every single iterations i've know of, always a spell.
It's not like Athena came down the sky just to to tell him "oh, by the way, why not donning some pitch and look older?", that would've been ridiculous, expecially if he was already so "clever" himself.

There's no need for a repeat.

I mean you didn't give any reasons for your disagreement, you just stated it. Which is fine and all, but doesn't do anything to support your case.

What did you expect me to say?
None of your examples, "the grizzled veteran" "han solo" match the level of a god's intervention. As I said, there isn't much to debate: they're not convincing enough.

But it raises the question of why they didn't just drop the ring in the volcano themselves.

If I am to judge by your standards, because they didn't "earn" it.
They "earned" their salvation (from the lava) thanks to the success in their quest: destroying the ring.
Gandalf earned salvation from the top of the tower thanks of his pure stand against Saruman's temptation, etc. etc.
You can't excuse Athena's "earned" meddling as not being as deus ex while qualifying those as such.


Do not worry though, I've got no intention to continue nitpicking your examples: I honestly don't have much will left to continue on this discussion.
In my view the term "deus ex machina" has changed, broadening outside of its ancient and extreme "only if there's literally no possible other escape, ever" iteration to a broader "when the situation was particularly difficult and the solution to it proved arbitrary and external" meaning.
I believe it wiser to recognize that we're simply at a point where words will just add to themselves without actually changing anything, and let it be.

[jere7my]

We already addressed this, and I already responded:

Your response was a non sequitur. You said, "It was magic." I said "Just because Homer said it was magic, that doesn't mean it was magic. Here's why." You said, "It was magic." I gave an extended scholarly interpretation of that scene to explain why it was not simply magic. You said, "It was magic." That's not a response; that's you clinging with white knuckles to your own naïve interpretation in the face of all evidence.

It's not like Athena came down the sky just to to tell him "oh, by the way, why not donning some pitch and look older?", that would've been ridiculous, expecially if he was already so "clever" himself.

Yes! Exactly! He is so clever that when he solves the problem on his own it's as though Athena herself helped him out. There is no distinction between being clever and being favored by Athena, to the Greek mind. They are the same thing, because Athena is cleverness. The fact that Homer personifies this transaction doesn't cheapen it or make it a deus ex machina.

What did you expect me to say?]
None of your examples, "the grizzled veteran" "han solo" match the level of a god's intervention. As I said, there isn't much to debate: they're not convincing enough.

The point is, if an ally says "I'm gonna come help you out later, if you keep being my kind of dude," it cannot be a deus ex machina when they do, because it's been previously established. It doesn't matter whether the ally is a god, a superhero, a powerful warrior, or what-have-you. You're focusing on the "deus" without considering the story role — if person X gives Odysseus a good disguise, or person Y shows up at the right moment to knock Vader out of the fight, or person Z shows up to turn the tide of the battle, which one "matches the level of a god's intervention?" Look at the help, not the divinity of the helper. If Odysseus had befriended the proprietor of Athena's Costume Shop early in the story, and she'd shown up with a disguise at the end, would you consider that a deus ex machina?

Do not worry though, I've got no intention to continue nitpicking your examples

I bet you don't, since you asked for a single example and I gave you three.

I believe it wiser to recognize that we're simply at a point where words will just add to themselves without actually changing anything, and let it be.

I have no idea what that means, so I guess leaving you to use words however you like without worrying about their ability to communicate is a good plan.

[FujinAkari]

Yes! Exactly! He is so clever that when he solves the problem on his own it's as though Athena herself helped him out. There is no distinction between being clever and being favored by Athena, to the Greek mind. They are the same thing, because Athena is cleverness.

Would this be a bad time to point out that Hermes is the Greek God of cleverness?

[jere7my]

Would this be a bad time to point out that Hermes is the Greek God of cleverness?

Eh. It's more complicated than that. They both get aspects of "cleverness". It's the distinction between shrewdness and strategic inspiration on Athena's side and trickery and cunning on Hermes's. Hermes helps Odysseus a bunch of times too; both of them are on his side, and in fact they work together to help him out sometimes (like on the Isle of Circe).

[Mantine]

I bet you don't, since you asked for a single example and I gave you three.

I have no idea what that means, so I guess leaving you to use words however you like without worrying about their ability to communicate is a good plan.

I was already getting that kind of vibe, but this tells me that you're losing your edge and are now simply bent on "proving me wrong".
It's a matter of discussion, not of "winning" or "losing". No need to get aggressive.
That phrase, of which you didn't get the meaning of, was simply my way of saying that by this point everyone has already said what he wanted to, and that if nothing so far changed the other's opinion it'd be probably useless to insist.
Sometimes it's just wiser to give up, entitling each one to his own opinion.

I'm not a native english speaker, all of my knowledge of the language comes from my own self-teaching and experience, therefore it may happen me to not be able to properly convey what I want to say. However this isn't a valid reason to berate me with wordings such "so I guess leaving you to use words however you like without worrying about their ability to communicate is a good plan".
I don't remember being unpolite to you.

Pulling out was a good choice, and I'll consider this my last post on the matter.

[jere7my]

I'm not a native english speaker, all of my knowledge of the language comes from my own self-teaching and experience, therefore it may happen me to not be able to properly convey what I want to say.

In that case, I apologize for belittling your use of English. I am sure you are far more fluent in English than I am in any second language.

[Mantine]

No harm done, don't worry.

[Lord Torath]

The nowaday's term doesn't need such an "utter, absolute hopelessness where everything is lost and the sun clouds in darkness" for a DE to exist.
If we were to always absolutely need such extreme premises, there would have never been a deus ex since... well, ever. Name me one if you disagree.

My favorite examples are Pinoccio and A.I. (the long Steven Speilburg Film). In both stories, a semi-living being is transformed to a fully-living being by an outside source.

In Pinoccio, a magic fairy resolves the problem of granting the puppet real life. However, as she was also the cause of the problem, this is obviously not a case of Deus Ex Machina.

In A.I, humanity creates the robots, and grants them a "half-life." Then, humanity wipes itself out. The robots all want to be alive, but there's nothing they can do to help themselves. Humans can't do it, because the author killed them all off. What's left? Aliens!

[jere7my]

The robots all want to be alive, but there's nothing they can do to help themselves. Humans can't do it, because the author killed them all off. What's left? Aliens!

Those aren't aliens — those are super-evolved robots, the "descendants" of the AIs in the rest of the movie.

[dtilque]

Deux Sans Machina or G-D without a machine...

nitpick: Deus sine machina. "Sans" is French; deus ex machina is Latin.

And another note for anyone who feels the need to reverse the phrase to say "device from the god". It should be machina ex deo. So many people just swap "deus" and "machina". That would work if it were an English phrase, but not in Latin.

Technical (boring) reason for this: "Deus" is in the nominative case while "machina", being the object of the preposition "ex", is in the ablative case. Switching them requires you to put "machina" into the nominative case and "deus" into the ablative. It turns out that "machina" has the same inflection in both cases, but "deus" does not. Hence the change in the ending of "deus" to "deo".

Oh and if you want to pluralize it to "device from the gods", it would be machina ex deis

[Scrynor]

Seriously guys, the modern example is Lord of the Flies. Trapped on a rock path, forest on fire, horribly injured Piggy, children devolved into a murderous mob, and BAM... saved by sailors (forgive me if some details are slightly off - it's been a long time).

It's like, THE example. So much so that it was used in the Simpsons. They did a whole Lord of the Flies episode and at the end a narrator just overlays, "And eventually the children were saved by... oh... let's say, Moe".

[Scrynor]

Those aren't aliens — those are super-evolved robots, the "descendants" of the AIs in the rest of the movie.

A rose by any other name... Those are a big bag of stupid is what they are. Worst. Ending. Ever. They should have cut to the credits by having the final scene fold in half like a birthday card complete with a Hallmark symbol on the back.

::edit:: Although to be fair the first two endings weren't bad. I guess you can't blame a guy for going 2 for 3...

[jere7my]

A rose by any other name... Those are a big bag of stupid is what they are.

Well, the difference is that evolved AIs are a natural progression from what came before in the movie; aliens would have been completely out of left field.

[Scrynor]

Oh I agree. I understand that. But it says a lot that they had to come out with a media press release after the movie to confirm that they were, in fact, hyper evolved AI and not aliens.

This may be wild speculation on my part but I always felt that the third ending was shoe-horned on to the back of the film because the studio or financial backers or whoever demanded a happy ending and the director purposefully made them look like stereotypical aliens out of spite to show his scorn...