OOTS #1171 - The Discussion Thread

[woweedd]

THAT IS NOT WHAT A DEUS EX MACHINA. A DEUS Ex MACHINA must come without warning. Both Durkon’s plan and the HP examples, were foreshadowed, quite extensively. A Deus Ex Machina is something NO ONE, save the author, could have expected, not just “anything I didn’t expect”.

[Dion]

THAT IS NOT WHAT A DEUS EX MACHINA.

I’ve often idly wondered if “Ghost in the Shell” a translation of Deus ex Machina, after being mangled through a few intermediate languages?

Edit: It turns out they’re not related. See: http://www.word-detective.com/2011/06/ghost-in-the-machine/. Oh well.

[Jasdoif]

THAT IS NOT WHAT A DEUS EX MACHINA. A DEUS Ex MACHINA must come without warning. Both Durkon’s plan and the HP examples, were foreshadowed, quite extensively. A Deus Ex Machina is something NO ONE, save the author, could have expected, not just “anything I didn’t expect”.

Yes. A deus ex machina is a capability introduced in the same scene as the conflict it resolves. And this is a meaningful distinction because a deus ex machina points to a lack of foreshadowing...as in, if you're really in a situation where you truly think you need a deus ex machina, you'd benefit from going back and putting in some foreshadowing (which is easier said than done in serially-released formats, admittedly).

And I mean, in one comic almost 13² strips beforehand we have HPoH unable to mentally associate the content of two separate memories himself, HPoH picking up one of Durkon's mannerisms...and Durkon noticing both of those things. Durkon taking advantage of the former to take advantage of the latter didn't come out of nowhere; that the surrounding scenario was orders of magnitude more intense doesn't change that.

[Ruck]

It seems like a lot of these have been addressed already, so I'll just stick to some quick points.

So now that we've answered those questions, let's look at Durkon. I think we can agree that the "Durkon kills Durkon* while Durkon is Durkon*" probably qualifies as a Deus Ex Machina. There's no mechanical justification for it, the bad guys won fair and square when the narrative required them to lose. If we flipped the narrative around, suppose Team OotS defeated Xykon fair and square, destroyed the phylactery, and then, having been completely killed off, Xykon bursts out of Roy's chest with a big "Nope" and an evil cackle. There's no mechanical justification for it, it's just "Roy dies because the plot demands that Xykon needed one more pun."

No, "we" can't. It doesn't seem like anyone agrees with you, really.

There's only one Mary Sue in the story, and that's Tsukiko. Except she's not the Mary Sue of The Order of the Stick, but the Mary Sue of the story she thinks she's in, How Tsukiko the Brave and Beautiful Made The World's Most Powerful Lich Fall in Love.

Also re: plans in advance. Not relevant. Ditto "Plotted backwards from the DXM" vs "Ran into plot wall, therefore DXM."

Of course they are relevant. "Plotted backwards from ___" is the opposite of a Deus ex Machina.

Maybe Marty Stu is the wrong term. Is there a trope for a character who consistently can do no wrong because no matter what, the universe goes out of its way to accomodate their blunders and let them win anyway?

Billy Madison.

[Rrmcklin]

Oh look, my lunch break is up. Tune in next week for another exciting episode!

Also re: plans in advance. Not relevant. Ditto "Plotted backwards from the DXM" vs "Ran into plot wall, therefore DXM."

Both of those are absolutely relevant, they just also happen to be to the detriment of your argument. The only case that could be made about Durkon's gambit being a Deus ex Machina is that it was a completely without foreshadowing event that only or primarily exists to resolve the issue of the Order being defeated, neither of which is the case.

If you want to talk about something irrelevant, though, you saying there's no mechanical basis for it certainly applies. Because Mr. Burlew has been very clear that he follows Dnd rules except for when he believes it hinders the plot to do so. In this case, he came up with his own mechanics for how vampires work to serve the story that he wanted to tell. Mr. Burlew is only obliged to stay consistent with the rules he makes, or previously established exist in this world, nothing more.

Which isn't to say you have to like how vampires work in this story, or the resolution to Durkon's vampire imprisonment. But it does mean that calling the conclusion a Deus ex Machina is factually incorrect.

Incidentally, this is why regardless of how many dictionary definitions you decide to copy and paste, if you aren't applying them correctly, it's still fair to say you don't really understand the terms you are using.

[Dion]

So I’ve always assumed that when bookish nerdy people write stories, they identify with bookish nerdy characters they write about, and sometimes those characters risk turning into the author’s self insertion.

So, for example, I do believe Bilbo was a standin for JRR Tolkien in LotR.

Similarly, I think Tyrion is everything GRR Martin wishes he could be.

Which of the characters in OotS is Rich?

[Ruck]

So I’ve always assumed that when bookish nerdy people write stories, they identify with bookish nerdy characters they write about, and sometimes those characters risk turning into the author’s self insertion.

So, for example, I do believe Bilbo was a standin for JRR Tolkien in LotR.

Similarly, I think Tyrion is everything GRR Martin wishes he could be.

Which of the characters in OotS is Rich?

I think Martin has even said something along the lines of Tyrion being who he wish he could be and Sam being who he actually is.

As far as Rich goes, my first guess would be Elan?

[Peelee]

So, for example, I do believe Bilbo was a standin for JRR Tolkien in LotR.

I thought Bilbo was the generic Englishman. After all, if there's one thing the British love to satirize, it's themselves.

[The_Weirdo]

Nah, her son is an infant, so he goes wherever she would go, assuming the Snarl doesn't unmake him. Hilgya is concerned about the possibility of her own death, not the fate of Kudzu's soul.

Wait, wait. Where did you get that info?

As for her not wanting to risk death, eh. No one does.

[Squire Doodad]

I think Martin has even said something along the lines of Tyrion being who he wish he could be and Sam being who he actually is.

As far as Rich goes, my first guess would be Elan?

I've heard of people basing characters after an "aspect" that they see in themselves, and I've done some characters in that sort of style. While Elan himself doesn't strike me as being a stand in for Rich, the storytelling and general genre savvy does strike a chord of sorts.

[jwhouk]

In fact, I’d argue that Odin originally selected Durkon for the mission because of the kind of person Durkon is.

To be fair, Odin isn’t even sure if he actually selected Durkon. So I recognize my argument breaks down in less than two steps.

But I’m still going to argue it anyhow.

Maybe Odin wasn't actually the one who made the decision, but Thor used him to make the prophecy?

[Squire Doodad]

Maybe Odin wasn't actually the one who made the decision, but Thor used him to make the prophecy?

I don't quite see Thor manipulating his father to make a prophecy, but something to that effect in which Thor reminds Odin about it or suggests that Odin should tell his high priest about it seems plausible.

[Rrmcklin]

Maybe Odin wasn't actually the one who made the decision, but Thor used him to make the prophecy?

Then why would Thor be so assured that his father is the one who made the decision to set all of this in motion?

Honestly, I still think the simplest answer is that some people are thinking way more about Odin saying "sounds mean" than we're actually supposed to.

Thor says Odin has good days and bad days - the prophecy and what it meant was given on a "good" day, and in the middle of a "bad" day, Odin cant quite remember doing so. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

[Schroeswald]

I don't quite see Thor manipulating his father to make a prophecy, but something to that effect in which Thor reminds Odin about it or suggests that Odin should tell his high priest about it seems plausible.

I seem to remember Thor explicitly thinking Odin did it as part of a plan, and then Odin had no clue whether he did anything of the sort, I can't see Thor forgetting or lying about him being a part of this plan.

[Squire Doodad]

Then why would Thor be so assured that his father is the one who made the decision to set all of this in motion?

Honestly, I still think the simplest answer is that some people are thinking way more about Odin saying "sounds mean" than we're actually supposed to.

Thor says Odin has good days and bad days - the prophecy and what it meant was given on a "good" day, and in the middle of a "bad" day, Odin cant quite remember doing so. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Basically this.

Odin did the prophecy, Thor at least vaguely knew about it but didn't have a part in it. Him bringing it up while Odin calls it "mean" equates to trying to jog your elderly grandfather's memory about the plans he was making to invite everyone to a picnic next week.

[Ruck]

I've heard of people basing characters after an "aspect" that they see in themselves, and I've done some characters in that sort of style. While Elan himself doesn't strike me as being a stand in for Rich, the storytelling and general genre savvy does strike a chord of sorts.

But... but the avatar.

Wait, wait. Where did you get that info?

I think there's a quote from Rich to that effect, probably when someone asked "So how was it determined which afterlife Eric Greenhilt went to?"

[Riftwolf]

I thought Bilbo was the generic Englishman. After all, if there's one thing the British love to satirize, it's themselves.

I always thought Tom Bombadil was an author insert.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I always thought Tom Bombadil was an author insert.

This is Tolkien's actual headstone. Three guesses who his actual self-insert is, and the first don't count.

Grey Wolf

[Schroeswald]

This is Tolkien's actual headstone. Three guesses who his actual self-insert is, and the first don't count.

Grey Wolf

I honestly can't tell what it means, its been awhile since I last (and first) read LoTR.

[The_Weirdo]

But... but the avatar.



I think there's a quote from Rich to that effect, probably when someone asked "So how was it determined which afterlife Eric Greenhilt went to?"

Does that rule include dwarven infants? o_O

[Squire Doodad]

Does that rule include dwarven infants? o_O

If it includes 5 year olds, it'll include infants.

[Rrmcklin]

Does that rule include dwarven infants? o_O

Why wouldn't it?

[Squire Doodad]

Why wouldn't it?

Correction: if it exists, why wouldn't it apply to dwarven infants.

[Peelee]

This is Tolkien's actual headstone. Three guesses who his actual self-insert is, and the first don't count.

Grey Wolf

I'm going with Balin.

[The MunchKING]

The Harry Potter I'm familiar with didn't really excel that much;

A good description I heard was that he excelled at mana manipulation. Once he bothered to learn a spell, he could throw it around at a high level of proficiency with minimal training. Hermonie was more into book learning, but he was better at raw power.

...

Also tripping over people throwing plot devices at him, but still...

[The_Weirdo]

Why wouldn't it?

Weren't they included in the bet? That's what I was wondering here.

[Rrmcklin]

Weren't they included in the bet? That's what I was wondering here.

This idea that the bet would exclude dwarf children for some reason has never made sense to me. How unfair and terrible it is a very clearly the point, and also no mention of exemptions (aside from "honorable death") have ever been brought up.

Edit: Or do you mean "where does a baby go if it's parents have already died with honor, but the baby itself didn't?" In which case, I'd assume the whole "die without honor, go to Hel" rule trumps any preexisting "go to parent rule".

[Squire Doodad]

Weren't they included in the bet? That's what I was wondering here.

Hm, a good point.
I'll leave that to everyone else but that is worth considering.

[Aquillion]

I'm going with Balin.

Shelob, clearly.

[The MunchKING]

This idea that the bet would exclude dwarf children for some reason has never made sense to me. How unfair and terrible it is a very clearly the point, and also no mention of exemptions (aside from "honorable death") have ever been brought up.

I'm guessing the standards for "what they could have done that could be considered honorable when they died" are lower for infants, but I imagine they still have to DO something, and it's really hard for babies to understand that kind of thing let alone act on it.