Deus Ex Machina in the HP series, Conceivable or Inconceivable, That is the Question |
 Aug 1 2008, 05:47 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Grand Pooh-Bah of the Poking Sticks Emporium  Posts: 6,771 Joined: 3:53pm January 4, 2008 Location: Fine-tuning her Spambot Magnet   |
A very interesting discussion was born in the Carry on Camping thread brought forth by SarahW:
QUOTE(SarahW @ Aug 19 2008, 04:02 PM)  The issue with the Deluminator, is that for 6.5 books it was a device to remove light. Then, suddenly, it developed the ability to detect the location of lost friends and also teleport the owner to them. I try to avoid the phrase, but lots of critics think of it as the worst type of Deus Ex-Machina. Starlesswinter posted the following: QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 19 2008, 06:23 PM) Oh, and the deluminator thing...it IS a deux machina, in my opinion, because its other abilities were not even hinted at before. When Jo foreshadows in that awesome subtle way she has, you can tell it was planned. But things in Deathly Hallows such as the Deluminator, each of the Hallows, the flesh memory Snitch (which I can't seem to find in Quidditch Through the Ages, hm...): these weren't hinted at whatsoever, and I don't buy that they were planned. And davidenglish the following: QUOTE(davidenglish @ Aug 20 2008, 11:34 AM) I don't see any of the gifts given in Dumbledore's Will as Deus ex machina. Indeed, the gifts parallel the Deathly Hallows. The Trio are on a winding road and have escaped certain death and so Death (Dumbledore) gives them three gifts: The Tales of Beedle the Bard, The Deluminator, and the special Snitch. According to wikipedia deus ex machina is defined as follows: QUOTE It is an improbable contrivance in a story characterized by a sudden unexpected solution to a seemingly intractable problem. The term "deus ex machina" came to mean any inferior plot device that expeditiously solves the conflict of a narrative. Several posters have discussed in insightful detail that many of the plot lines unearthed in DH were a bit unbelievable and were contrived by Rowling at the last minute. In addition, some feel that the things that we learn are improbable and we as readers were never given any hints in previous books in the series.Others feel that Rowling did a brilliant job in interweaving her complex plot, and we learned everything we needed to know, as it was planned and Rowling succeeded in making her plot believable and enough plausible hints were given to the readers. So, let's discuss deus ex machina as a plot device in the series, its pros and cons and remember to give canon evidence to support your theories  I would like to thank SarahW, starlesswinter, davidenglish, roonwit and all of those posters who have contributed to the discussions so far and who have inspired this thread 
This post has been edited by lirene: Aug 23 2008, 12:33 AM --------------------  |
 |
 
 
|
|
Aug 20 2008, 03:21 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Personal Secretary to The Minister of Magic  Posts: 9,182 Joined: 4:57am January 28, 2005 Location: near Muggleswick, UK |
QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 20 2008, 12:23 AM) Oh, and the deluminator thing...it IS a deux machina, in my opinion, because its other abilities were not even hinted at before. Actually, I tend to think that its other abilities simply didn't exist in the earlier books, and Dumbledore only added them when he was planning what he was leaving to the trio to help their quest, and needed a somewhat useful object to leave to Ron to help him return after he found the quest too tough.QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 20 2008, 12:23 AM) When Jo foreshadows in that awesome subtle way she has, you can tell it was planned. But things in Deathly Hallows such as the Deluminator, each of the Hallows, the flesh memory Snitch ... When I first read it I am sure I had heard the idea of the snitch having a memory about who touched it somewhere before, though I have failed to find any reference subsequently. But the Hallows were definitely planned, because two of them are mentioned in previous books.
--------------------  W.L.Y.J. We love you Jo |
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2008, 04:23 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Stargazing on the Astronomy Tower Posts: 3,899 Joined: 8:04pm September 28, 2005 Location: Astronomy Tower  |
QUOTE(roonwit @ Aug 20 2008, 03:21 PM) QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 20 2008, 12:23 AM) Oh, and the deluminator thing...it IS a deux machina, in my opinion, because its other abilities were not even hinted at before. Actually, I tend to think that its other abilities simply didn't exist in the earlier books, and Dumbledore only added them when he was planning what he was leaving to the trio to help their quest, and needed a somewhat useful object to leave to Ron to help him return after he found the quest too tough.QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 20 2008, 12:23 AM) When Jo foreshadows in that awesome subtle way she has, you can tell it was planned. But things in Deathly Hallows such as the Deluminator, each of the Hallows, the flesh memory Snitch ... When I first read it I am sure I had heard the idea of the snitch having a memory about who touched it somewhere before, though I have failed to find any reference subsequently. But the Hallows were definitely planned, because two of them are mentioned in previous books.I agree with the idea of Albus modifying the Deluminator to work as a teleporter, in case Ron lost his way. --------------------  "We need metaphors of magic and monsters in order to understand the human condition."-Stephen Donaldson "One of the greatest talents in the world is to never say two words when one will do." |
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2008, 05:10 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Grand Pooh-Bah of the Poking Sticks Emporium Posts: 6,771 Joined: 3:53pm January 4, 2008 Location: Fine-tuning her Spambot Magnet |
QUOTE(Shard @ Aug 20 2008, 05:23 PM) I agree with the idea of Albus modifying the Deluminator to work as a teleporter, in case Ron lost his way. As do I The Deluminator was a creation of Dumbledore to begin with, so being so familiar with its magic, it is absolutely feasible that Dumbledore modified this object, and in fact I believe he very well did so. So, I can't say that this object reflected any deus ex machina, as the Deluminator was a very probable contrivance, and not some inferior plot device thought up at the last minute because of a plot hole Rowling had to correct.I like the way you describe the gifts given to the trio, davidenglish; very insightful Ron certainly matured in DH and he was illuminated to his faults and weaknesses.
-------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Aug 21 2008, 01:13 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Kibble Boy/Girl at the Magical Menagerie Posts: 260 Joined: 9:55pm December 30, 2006 Location: Portage, Indiana |
Well of course, Jo SAYS that she planned it all out, but where's the evidence? I'm sorry, but when it's clear she planned a lot of things toward the beginning and middle of the series (and some such as the subplots of Snape and a few Horcruxes at the end), there are no CLUES for this later stuff being discussed at all.
Where is the information about the Snitch's flesh memory in Quidditch Through the Ages or in the series itself? It's not there....and why wouldn't it be in a book about the history of Quidditch? If she had planned the Deluminator to make a change later, don't you think she would have had Dumbledore use it to perhaps find the Dursleys rather than take away the lights at Privet Drive? As for the Hallows being planned... 1) We were never told anywhere in the series that there were no such things as real invisibility cloaks or even hints that they don't last forever. Ron's heard of them, but he never once notices that there anything odd about Harry's? 2) The Resurrection Stone was only ever mentioned in book six (which is proof only that Jo planned that at least through the writing of HBP). 3) If the Elder Wand's bloody trail is all over the pages of history, why were there never any hints or mentions of this supposedly fabled wand? Not even in a saying or as a "swear" phrase? Not as a joke from Luna or in the pages or table of contents of the Quibbler? 4) If the wizarding world knows the Tales of Beedle the Bard so well, why did no one ever mention them in passing? Not Mrs. Weasley reminiscing about reading them to her kids? Not sitting on a shelf in Flourish and Blotts as Jo lists the books Harry sees? If anything, this is Jo's way of taking items that had no further use to the overall story and making them into something new at the last minute; therefore, she was previously unable to hint at them. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that (and it's clever in a lesser way), but since Jo has always made a big deal out of her gigantic planning from the very beginning, and since there is sufficient evidence for many earlier things, why is there none for such seemingly important elements to the last and vital book in the series? Just in case I get attacked for this post, I do LOVE this series, but I just don't have to think that Jo is the goddess of plot as well. -------------------- Aunt Petunia's Number One Fan!
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 21 2008, 02:56 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Grand Pooh-Bah of the Poking Sticks Emporium Posts: 6,771 Joined: 3:53pm January 4, 2008 Location: Fine-tuning her Spambot Magnet |
QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 21 2008, 01:13 AM) If anything, this is Jo's way of taking items that had no further use to the overall story and making them into something new at the last minute; therefore, she was previously unable to hint at them. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that (and it's clever in a lesser way), but since Jo has always made a big deal out of her gigantic planning from the very beginning, and since there is sufficient evidence for many earlier things, why is there none for such seemingly important elements to the last and vital book in the series? I won't attack you at all, starlesswinter, but I will politely disagree with you on several points if I may When Rowling says that she has planned all of these elements I believe her, however, as a reader I don't expect to find hints about them, especially if such a hint will spoil it later on. So, I don't think we need clues to verify whether or not Rowling planned these elements or not. The element of surprise and interest would be lost if I had an eye opener every time something was mentioned.The important elements you point out to in your previous post: I will briefly mention: 1. Why would Rowling give us a hint about whether or not real invisibility cloaks exist? What would this have brought to the story? There really was no place for it. Very early on the reader probably knows that Harry's cloak is special, but of course how special it is can only be learned in DH. So why spoil this? 2. What more could have been said about the Resurrection Stone? And why do we the readers need to know its significance in earlier books? Having it mentioned in HBP is early enough and the storyline blends right into the conclusion in DH. 3. The Elder Wand; this was a closely guarded plot line. Why would I as a reader want to know all about it ahead of time? 4. Same goes for Beedle The Bard. Why did Mrs. Weasley have to mention it in order for readers to believe that these tales were popular and plausible? And if something was taken at the last minute and elaborated on, then I have to give kudos to Rowling for being so brilliant! So, these camping scenes to me reflect what others have said, and I like what ELC says about "relationships never being static". Even if the adventure slowed down a bit, nothing has been taken away from the plot; in fact, I believe it added many more deep and ponderous facets
-------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Aug 21 2008, 02:58 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Doctor Filibuster's Junior Assistant Posts: 1,963 Joined: 8:57am March 12, 2005 Location: at Home or somewhere in between |
QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 21 2008, 07:13 AM) If she had planned the Deluminator to make a change later, don't you think she would have had Dumbledore use it to perhaps find the Dursleys rather than take away the lights at Privet Drive? I do think that she introduces us to the Deluminator in the very first pages of the book to keep us questioning and wondering in the back of our minds throughout the Series. I don't think it unusual to find that something rather ordinary has hidden talents, which aren't so obvious on first appearance. My guess that taking the lights away on Privet Drive was to disillusion any Muggle, who might have been looking out the window at the time Hagrid was expected to make his appearance on the flying motorbike. It is much easier to think that "I must have been seeing things" or "I shouldn't mention it..they might think I'm hitting the sauce again  ", when the action takes place in the dark, as opposed to being lit up. When a child complains of monsters in the closet, one common parental solution to get the child back to sleep is to keep a nightlight on. It illuminates or makes known to the child that they have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, when dealing with Muggles, it would be necessary to take away the light - keeping them safely in the dark about Magic and letting them get on with life believing: what I don't know won't hurt me!By the time we get to DH, JKR had given us many clues to expect that the Deluminator had other properties. Rowling remains faithful to the concepts she introduces, through which we are meant to learn along with Harry, in figuring out for ourselves the most logical outcome - or at least where she was going with it. She spends a lot of time with potions and the principles of alchemy, inviting us between books to investigate further the real life references she drops casually (or not so casually) within each volume. The references to Nicholas Flamel could end up making a connection between The Philosopher's Stone and Sir Isaac Newton. Reference to Newton would bring you to Newton's Law of Motion (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction), planting an idea which could make you wonder if the same principles apply to object in the Potterverse. Throughout the Series, there is an underlying theme of balance (male/female, body/soul, light/dark, black/white, give/take etc) which if the story is to remain true to itself, the answer must be "yes". QUOTE Just in case I get attacked for this post, I do LOVE this series, but I just don't have to think that Jo is the goddess of plot as well. I do respect your opinion, but for the reasons I mentioned above, I think she is (if not a goddess ), most definitely a very talented Master in the Department of Plot Research and Development. 
This post has been edited by momwitch: Aug 21 2008, 03:09 PM -------------------- Avatar made with Poser 6 and Photoshop Elements
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 21 2008, 03:26 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Personal Secretary to The Minister of Magic Posts: 9,182 Joined: 4:57am January 28, 2005 Location: near Muggleswick, UK |
QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 21 2008, 07:13 AM) If she had planned the Deluminator to make a change later, don't you think she would have had Dumbledore use it to perhaps find the Dursleys rather than take away the lights at Privet Drive? That would give away too much too soon. We like the rest of wizarding world are supposed to think it is just a useful gadget for manipulating light. In particular the Ministry isn't meant to know of its extra powers, nor is Ron, or he would most likely give the wrong reaction on receiving it. So it makes perfect sense that Dumbledore would conceal its extra powers (whenever they were added) so they would be discovered at the right time (and if for example Ron knew of its ability to find Harry and Hermione again, he might well have deliberately left it behind when he stormed out, because at that moment he didn't ever what to return).However, we a sreaders should have been asking questions about the deluminator when we first saw it, because it is device with no strong reason for being there, or for appearing again in OotP, and as with the unexplained character in a murder mystery, that should have set alarm bells ringing. -------------------- W.L.Y.J. We love you Jo |
|
|
|
|
Aug 21 2008, 07:30 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Buying a Half-Kneazle Posts: 515 Joined: 1:37pm September 7, 2007 Location: Azkaban, Practicing my Patronus |
QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 21 2008, 07:13 AM) If she had planned the Deluminator to make a change later, don't you think she would have had Dumbledore use it to perhaps find the Dursleys rather than take away the lights at Privet Drive? . . . We were never told anywhere in the series that there were no such things as real invisibility cloaks or even hints that they don't last forever. Ron's heard of them, but he never once notices that there's anything odd about Harry's? My goodness, Starlesswinter, you've given us quite a bit of "work" to do here!  If I could perhaps understand you less directly than you intend, could I -- for lack of argument's sake -- offer you a lemon drop? Don't worry, I believe it is quite harmless. You see, the non-magic people in Harry Potter know nothing of "the wizarding world;" and in fact, many new readers about Harry Potter understand it even less. We therefore take it for granted that if you fancy lemon drops, you might accept one. Yet Professor McGonagal is not from "our" world, and therefore is not so trusting of this delicious treat. The Deluminator (or "Put-Outer," as it was called in HP PS/SS and OotP), on the other hand, is a magic device. Is it the first such device to be introduced in the series?? Yet I believe the truly magical effect of this (literary) device is easily missed. Curiously, it is the beginning of a desensitization process. I dare say that we readers are the true beneficiaries of this "magic." Many of us are lulled into a state of "mis-believing." The normal and natural become absurd; and the unnatural and "unacceptable" now are common place. Thus we are "delusioned" into a state of ficticious rapture. The Invisibility Cloak is a device of obvious religious significance (to Magic and Non-Magic folk alike), yet not to all cultures of readers. Indeed, don't we learn that on the night James and Lily Potter were killed (Harry Potter Day - 31 October), James did not have the Cloak in his possession? Rather, Dumbledore (by some "trick" of poetic justice) had it in his possession. Yet on what occasion did Dumbledore "return" the Cloak to Harry??? A Cloak to "hide" from Death. (  I wonder if it had been woven from mithril?)Poetic Justice = The Right to Drive a Verse! ELC This post has been edited by Ex Libres Cogito: Aug 21 2008, 07:42 PM -------------------- In troubled times, it is often better to remember simple pleasures - family, virtue, and character - rather than to succumb to the woesome distractions of desire, defeat, and disillusionment. ELC
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 21 2008, 07:53 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Kibble Boy/Girl at the Magical Menagerie Posts: 260 Joined: 9:55pm December 30, 2006 Location: Portage, Indiana |
Well, I'm sorry to have to disagree with you again. As mentioned, Jo hinted at so much that had to do with the first half of the series, and no one picked up on these clues. It wouldn't have spoiled anything! Sirius Black was mentioned in passing in the very first chapter of book one, but no one thought he would become important. The diary was a Horcrux all along, but it was never suspected of being anything more than it was in book two. These are examples of hints for the overall arc of the story. Then there are also the individual book clues, which include things like Pettigrew's and Scabbers's missing finger (I have yet to find someone who caught this before the reveal) and also the four appearances of a beetle throughout Goblet of Fire, which later turns out to be Rita Skeeter. Such hints and foreshadowing are very clever because they do not give away the secrets by drawing attention to themselves. Therefore, I do not buy the idea that hints for Deathly Hallows would have given anything away or have been "eye openers" for the reader. Allow me to further explain in detail:
1. INVISIBILITY CLOAKS: Perhaps the reason this is so irking to me is that it almost feels like a cheat, as if Jo is changing the rules of her universe in order to fit the plot (When analyzing a novel, you must go with the evidence in the book itself, and not upon what characters might have done or said outside the pages). I am not, however, suggesting that Hermione had to walk up to Harry and say, "Oh, you know there's something strange about that cloak of yours, I've always noticed it. You do know, don't you, that those things usually don't last as long as yours?" No, that would be a clear giveaway for later importance to the story. Yet a simple mention by Mad-Eye that he might be late for dinner at Grimmauld Place because he had to purchase a new Invisibility Cloak (meaning in secret that his had begun to wear out of magic) would pass over the majority of readers' heads. Perhaps Winky or Barty Crouch Jr. could also have mentioned that the cloak Barty used to hide at the QWC was his second or third cloak. ("Master had one when he was young too!" sobbed Winky. "But never for something like this!") as an example of an effective hint. In fact, the use of both of these quotes would only strengthen the idea, for it would be quite a coincidence if Crouch Jr. and Mad-Eye both shredded theirs or had theirs stolen (or something like that). 2. RESURRECTION STONE: Perhaps you are misunderstanding me in this area. We readers do not need to know its significance in earlier books; we just need to be able to go back and see that there are clues there for us to see that the stone within the ring is the Resurrection Stone, even though we didn't catch them. In HBP, we are never told what the Peverell coat of arms looks like upon the ring, and explaining that it looked like a triangle enclosing a circle and a line would NOT have given anything away. Even the symbol's appearance on the UK book cover for DH would not have given anything away. Only when we read Deathly Hallows would it have made sense. Perhaps when Tom Riddle Sr. rides past the Gaunt shack as he tells his girlfriend how crazy Morfin is, he could have mentioned that while Morfin sits in the yard playing with his ring, he hears voices and talks to them. That would not draw any suspicion toward the ring; it would just drive the point that Morfin is a little crazy. 3. ELDER WAND: Again, we did not need to know that there was really an Elder Wand; we just needed to have the small hints. As I said above, this could have been done as "swear" phrase (for lack of a better term) in the wizarding world. Like the wizards say "Merlin's beard!", perhaps "Wand of Elder!" or something like that. I think I remember Ron saying a related aphorism or something like that, but it was definitely in the last book - not earlier. Hermione mentions that Professor Binns talked about the Elder Wand, the Deathstick, Wand of Destiny before, but do we ever read that scene? No. Perhaps after Binns tells the story of the Chamber, someone else could have asked to hear about the Elder Wand, and Binns would refuse. ("Let's get back to fact, Mr. Finnigan!" or something of that sort). We readers also never hear any clues about anything odd going on with Dumbledore's wand. (Perhaps when he hears Ron's wand has broken, Dumbledore could say, "I'm very sorry to hear it. I have been rather lucky with this one. It's never been broken while I've had it." Or perhaps during the Weighing of the Wands, Ollivander could see that Dumbledore's wand is not the same he had years before: "Ah yes, a rather unfortunate happening, but these things happen. A change of hand for the better, I think.") Also, while Harry looks over the table of contents of the Quibbler, there could be a story titled "Elder Wand: Proven at Last?", which would make the idea appear silly. Maybe the use of ALL these hints would draw a little notice, but a few definitely would not. This issue is also very irking to me, because the Elder Wand plays a big role in the defeat of Voldemort. Since the defeat of the Dark Lord is the overall arc of the series, why would something so vital to that plot only be mentioned in the last half of the final book, especially when Jo has been so good about hinting at significant things? Someone once told me that perhaps Dumbledore being so brilliant was because of the Elder Wand, but there is no evidence for that, and Jo herself said that she saw Dumbledore as being "self-taught." 4. TALES OF BEEDLE THE BARD: The idea that almost all witches and wizards know of these fairy tales is not hard to believe if you think logically about our world, but within the books, they are not even mentioned beforehand. That makes no sense to me. In this real world, one can find allusions to fairy tales all over the place - why not in the series? Sitting on a shelf in Flourish and Blotts or the Burrow would draw no attention. It would be no different than the early mentions of Sirius or the Lovegoods. In my opinion, this would be quite a simple one to setup. 5. DELUMINATOR: Perhaps you are right that the use of the Deluminator to find the Dursleys would give too much away. But its random new powers at the end seem just that: random. Posted by momwitch: "By the time we get to DH, JKR had given us many clues to expect that the Deluminator had other properties." This might be true to expect that something would have other properties, but not the Deluminator itself. It's not fair to say that because other things were hinted at, it's reasonable that something that wasn't hinted at could hold secrets too. It's like taking into consideration all those wonderful clues in POA and saying, "Well, look what she did in the Shrieking Shack! She clearly planned that, so why couldn't Neville be the son of Dumbledore? I'd believe it!" As for believing Jo, that's up to the individual to decide. I personally need the evidence for that. I love the series, and interestingly I once sided with all the "planning believers" once I read book six (in fact, I furiously defended it), only to completely change my mind once I finished Deathly Hallows. Also, if I am completely wrong and Jo DID have all this planned, why would she not hint? I mean, she's usually so good at it, and surely she could have hidden the clues as seemingly irrelevant information as she always does. This post has been edited by starlesswinter: Aug 21 2008, 10:30 PM -------------------- Aunt Petunia's Number One Fan!
|
|
|
|
