the title of this thread might sound cryptic to those who haven't read Misery - then they should hurry up and read it because it's one of the greatest books ever written - but, not to make those who have read it search for the relevant passage, I'll quote it here:
In Can You? the counsellor would start a story about this guy named Careless Corrigan. Careless was lost in the trackless jungles of South America. Suddenly he looks around and sees there are lions behind him . . . lions on either side of him . . . and by-God lions ahead of him.
Careless Corrigan is surrounded by lions . . . and they a starting to move in. <...>
The counsellor would look around the circle and pick one of the day-campers. "Daniel," he would say. "Can you?" The moment Can you? was out of his mouth, the counsellor would click the stopwatch into motion.
Daniel then had exactly ten seconds to go on with the story. If he did not begin to speak during those ten seconds, he had to leave the circle. But if he got Careless away from the lions, the counsellor would look at the circle again and ask the game's other question, one that recalled his current situation clearly to mind again. This question was Did he?
The rules for this part of the game were Annie's exactly. Realism was not necessary; fairness was. Daniel could say, for instance: "Luckily, Careless had his Winchester with him and plenty of ammo. So he shot three of the lions and the rest ran away." In a case like that, Daniel did. He got the stopwatch and went on with the story, ending his segment with Careless up to his hips in a pool of quicksand or something, and then he would ask someone else if he or she could, and bang down the button on the stopwatch.
But ten seconds wasn't long" and it was easy to get jammed up . . . easy to cheat. The next kid might well say something like "Just then this great big bird - an Andean vulture, I think - flew down. Careless grabbed its neck and made it pull him out of that quicksand." When the counsellor asked Did she?, you raised your hand if you thought she had, left it down if you thought she had blown it. In the case of the Andean vulture, the kid would almost surely have been invited to leave the circle.
We all know that Mr.King can - like no-one else. What Paul thinks of himself -
There are lots of guys out there who write a better prose line than I do and who have a better understanding of what people are really like and what humanity is supposed to mean - hell I know that. But when the counsellor asks Did he? about those guys, sometimes only a few people raise their hands. But they raise their hands for me . . . <...> Can I? Yeah. You bet I can.
- applies to Sai King tenfold.
The question is, Did he?
How do you see it? What are, for you, the favorite examples of He Did, or the most regrettable cases of He Did Not?
For example, take the growbag. That's something I'm very sorry about, because here it's clear for me that he Did Not.
***mild spoiler for Book 5
Spoiler:
They have to come by clothes and things, right? It's a classic situation of Can You, because the only way for them to do so without complicating their delicate situation is to buy them, and they have no money. Can You, Steve?
And then the growbag comes onstage, something Roland had kept mum about during four-and-a-half volumes -
- and the Annie Wilkes in me jumps off her seat and shouts, "It is not fair!!!"
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
North of "The Claw" & Patrick, East of Chad, RIP Bill Bender
Posts
40,447
My Mood
Country
Gender
Jean, I think you are referring to either a major, or a minor 'deus ex machina" correct?
The phrase deus ex machina ['de.ʊs eks 'maːkʰi.naː] (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot (e.g. an angel suddenly appearing to solve problems).
Very good point about the grow bag Jean - I mean you can almost swallow an utterly shameless deus ex machina like
Spoiler:
Susannah finding the note in Dandelo's bathroom...even though that grated on me a little
because it was so blatant. But the grow bag appeared in its own incredible way without having any explanation or excuse, such as coincidence.
I hadn't posted in here before as I was trying to think of other examples and couldn't remember any specific one - although just having finished Dreamcatcher I thought there were quite a few in there.
I think if you're going to throw a deus ex machina in anywhere, you should at least be upfront enough to admit it. Which is why I was okay with Darkthought's spoiler example.
But yeah, the grow bag...came out of left field and was never seen again.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
Jean, I think you are referring to either a major, or a minor 'deus ex machina" correct?
to an extent, yes. However:
1. Deus Ex Machina solution doesn't have to be unfair. There are cases when this solution is necessary, intrinsically belonging to the whole logic of the story, or to the cultural context the story is born in. In Greek theater, it was so closely related to the whole structure of religious and cultural life that in no way could it seem unfair or far-fetched: a god was expected to solve humans' problems, and his appearance would only mean that everything went as it is supposed to go. It was fair within the context; and if asked, Did He? - all them ancient Greeks would have raised their hands for the author of such a play.
The same way, although Darkthoughts wasn't quite happy with swallowing that which she mentions within that spoiler box in her post, she didn't mention
Spoiler:
The hotel room key Mr.King slips to Jake.
Because it was the logic of the Tower: if we accept that the universes around the tower include the one where
Spoiler:
the author of the book we're reading is writing this very book
we can hardly deny him what he humbly called "mail privileges" ("but only once"). It's inner logic of the story, and it fits the context - it is fair, even though it is a perfect Deus ex machina.
(I am still not sure about the example given by darkthoughts... the deus ex machina intrusion there was so unnecessary, given that Susannah was, after all, a gunslinger, and would have handled the situation without any hints, that I can't help thinking it was done on purpose. I am not sure what the purpose was, though. Maybe it was to reinforce the concept of deliberate introduction of deus ex machina, as introduced in the hotel key example)
2. There are cases when the solution is unfair (He Did Not), although no Deus ex machina is present.
(I apologize to those who've already heard me arguing the skeleton case elsewhere.)
In the example below, I'll always use the original Gunslinger (oh damn... hit the wrong key now and it came Bunslinger... understandably, it distracted me from what I was writing); I don't know how yet how this part is represented in the Reviewed, but it is quite irrelevant to the present discussion.
The remains of the wood he had carried had turned to ironwood, and the man in black was a laughing skeleton in a rotting black robe, more bones in this place of bones, one more skull in Golgotha.
The gunslinger stood up and looked around. He looked at the light and saw that the light was good.
With a sudden quick gesture he reached toward the remains of his companion of the night before.., a night that had somehow lasted ten years. He broke off Walter's jawbone and jammed it carelessly into the left hip pocket of his jeans -- a fitting enough replacement for the one lost under the mountains.
Does anyone have any doubts that it is Walter's skeleton? Now, can anyone sincerely say that the author himself at this point is not sure it is Walter's?
Then we see Walter pretty much alive.
Can it be that I am alone who feels it was true? Walter was dead, his skeleton was there and his jaw was later thrown into the fire producing the vision of the rose and the key, and that is the truth; Walter is alive now, and that is the truth. There's something big, something great, - obviously too great for human experience? - looming behind those two truths; something that maybe has to do with the very nature of life and death and universes and time. After all, that's what the series is, among other things, about; more revelations must be waiting for us when we explore this mysterious death/reappearance further.
Fat chance. Instead of the big revelation we have a small story of a changeling skeleton. Now, it is pathetic. It is not Deus ex machina; it is even realistic. But it is not fair comparing with our expectations, and it is not fair within the context of the book. It's not even that we're left wondering if anyone's jaw thrown into the fire produces visions of the right key; it's that we're cheated out of the real truth of what happened (maybe due to its inconceivability) and left with an attempt at rationalization, which is not worthy of the book and clashes with all (well, most) other solutions given there.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think King was inserting them purposely at the end of the series. So much of the Dark Tower is not about Roland and the Katet to me, but more about King and I think he let it all hang out in the last three.
The kindness of close friends is like a warm blanket
My initial reaction to some parts of DT7 were that King had run out of inspiration...thats not to say I wasn't digging it, let me be quite clear on that point! , but some parts seemed forced.
I'm glad for instance Jean, that you said
the deus ex machina intrusion there was so unnecessary, given that Susannah was, after all, a gunslinger, and would have handled the situation without any hints, that I can't help thinking it was done on purpose. I am not sure what the purpose was, though.
because I thought the same, its exactly how I felt when I read it.
Yeah, I don't know if King was freaking out as a result of the accident and really wanted to finish the series, and because of that he used a few "plot-advancers", or if he really intended it to be the way it was. Someone should ask him.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
My initial reaction to some parts of DT7 were that King had run out of inspiration...thats not to say I wasn't digging it, let me be quite clear on that point! , but some parts seemed forced.
I'm glad for instance Jean, that you said
the deus ex machina intrusion there was so unnecessary, given that Susannah was, after all, a gunslinger, and would have handled the situation without any hints, that I can't help thinking it was done on purpose. I am not sure what the purpose was, though.
because I thought the same, its exactly how I felt when I read it.
IMO, the whole criticism of dues ex machina is kinda moot after he wrote himself into the story as a character
"You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think." - Duma Key zoneseek@thedarktower.com
Zone, the growbag was the bag Roland pulled money and precious gems from to give to Eddie, Susannah and Jake when they were heading into town to shop at Tooks.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
The grow bag is mentioned briefly in the revised first book (not sure about the original) when he is holding palaver with the man in black. Walter rolls a smoke, and roland has no tobacco. It mentions walter doesn't offer him any, and his grow bag probably won't make more for quite some time.
Edit:
Original gunslinger:
"The gunslinger was silent, thoughtful. He felt for his tobacco, but there was none. The man in black did not offer to refill his poke by either black magic or white."
revised:
"The gunslinger was silent, thoughtful. He felt for his tobacco, but there was none. The man in black did not offer to refill his poke by either black magic or white. Later he might find more in his grow bag, but later seemed very far away now."
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
gr gr gr. It's not even a case of He Did Not now, it's He Did Not And Tried To Cover It Up.
Zone: what you said about Deus Ex Machina is exactly what I was trying to say here
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So do you think writing himself into the story was in part a giant exercise in cutting corners as it allowed blatant use of the deus ex machina tool? I think King has more integrity than that, though, which is exhibited by his impressive resume.
I honestly think he did it to become as close to the story and the characters he could - it hints at the gravity of the entire story in relation to his life and career. His level of involvement as a character and then through deus ex machina would have to be different than his other books otherwise the importance of the work to him as an author wouldn't have been conveyed to us. The convenience of being able to leave Jake the key, the scrimshaw turtle and the bowling ball bag, the note to susannah in Dandelo's house, are all on purpose to shade the young stephen king character we meet. He's used this real echo in the story - in a way, it muddies the idea of "fiction"
"You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think." - Duma Key zoneseek@thedarktower.com
So do you think writing himself into the story was in part a giant exercise in cutting corners as it allowed blatant use of the deus ex machina tool?
No, I definitely don't think anything like that. Here's what I think, sorry if I didn't make it clear in the initial posts:
King created the world consisting of all worlds. He made the reality consisting of all possible realities, and he went to the logical end: one of these worlds has to be ours. And in our world, there is a Steven King, and there is a long series called The Dark Tower.
This is something that might drive one crazy, mirrors reflected in mirrors.
The Dark Tower is the book written by King, and there’s no getting away from that. If all universes revolve around the Dark Tower, so is the one in which Sai King writes his story.
The quest for the Dark Tower is, at the same time, the true story, unrolling in the world of ultimate reality.
It is a book, and as it is written, its events happen.
The events happen, and, as they do, the book is being written.
As I said, the author of a story that happens in the ultimate reality engendered by the Tower (and is, by its very nature, the archetype of all stories), who at the same time is a character of this very story and lives his life as he writes it, has the right to interfere. I never ever said that any of his interferences were cases of He Did Not, and I wouldn't ever say that because it would be contrary to my whole understanding of the story (wrong as it may be, of course).
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Generally I am NOT a fan of the use of deus ex machina, and I will admit the first time I read about King inserting himself into the story I was a bit pissed off. After thinking about it awhile and rereading the story, I think it does make a lot more sense. So much of him is IN the story, it's almost impossible to keep himself OUT of it.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
... you can almost swallow an utterly shameless deus ex machina like
Spoiler:
Susannah finding the note in Dandelo's bathroom...even though that grated on me a little
because it was so blatant. ...
That was the one example of deus ex machina that completely pissed me off. I thought it was totally weak and felt like a shortcut. It was a "roll your eyes" kind of moment that I hate coming across. King could have done better as a storyteller than that.
"IMO" of course.
"...that Siren which called and sang and promised so much and gave, after all, so little." ~ Ray Bradbury
And the irritating thing about it too, as Jean said, was that it appeared that Suze was coming to that conclusion by herself anyway. I didn't feel that the note was necessary.
but you see, I didn't find it irritating. I believe the very un-necessity of that part was intended, maybe only to emphasize that mirrors-in-mirrors thing again.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It irritated me as I felt the last book was being rushed along in those instances. I didn't mean to quote you and assign my irritation to you , I meant to simply credit you with pointing out that Susannah could of come to the conclusion herself
1. It irritated me as I felt the last book was being rushed along in those instances.
2. I didn't mean to quote you and assign my irritation to you , I meant to simply credit you with pointing out that Susannah could of come to the conclusion herself
1. I agree... to an extent. But you know, if we try to accept all those things that seem rushed or just screwed up (apparent mistakes and unconsistensies) as something meant by the author, we might see an entirely different picture every time we make this mental exercise. I already argued elsewhere that I do believe inconsistencies, contradiction and paradox are intrinsic to the world we're living in, so they must occur in a book that reflects this world in its essence. I am still not sure how to interpret the part we're talking about now, but I am sure if we take it as something intended, interesting discoveries lie that way.
2.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did He?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Randall Flagg
