Gollum and Eagles: Deux ex machina?

[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 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 idea was previously put forth by none other than The Saucepan Man. Interesting...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by alatar

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]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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]

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

"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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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?!? 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

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Hmmm... so I'm being presumptuous? ...... again?!? 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]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Legolas

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

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.

Originally Posted by Legolas, originally

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)."