In literature and storytelling, various literary devices add depth and complexity to narratives. I incorporate them into my articles from time to time. Now, it’s time to learn about two more.
Two such devices are “eucatastrophe” and “deus ex machina”. You’ve probably come across at least one of these two hard-to-read terms before. Both are used to influence the course of a story, providing pivotal moments that can dramatically affect the characters and the plot.
Let’s explore what these terms mean, how they are employed, and their impact on storytelling. Additionally, I will provide examples from renowned authors and their works that showcase these devices and highlight the main difference between them.
Photo by Vladislav Glukhotko on Unsplash
First of all, eucatastrophe is a term coined by J.R.R. Tolkien himself, best known for his work in “The Lord of the Rings” series. This literary device is characterized by a sudden and unexpected turn of events that results in a positive outcome. It is often used to create moments of great joy, relief, or redemption in a story. Eucatastrophes defy the audience’s expectations and can occur when all hope seems lost.
For example, in Tolkien’s “The Return of the King”, the unexpected appearance of the Riders of Rohan during the Battle of Helm’s Deep saves the day for the surrounded ones. This twist of fate brings a sense of joy and triumph, providing a powerful emotional impact on the reader.
Have you noticed that Gandalf is foreshadowing when he tells them to look east at the dawn of the fifth day?
Also, dyscatastrophe, also used by Tolkien, refers to events that have no positive effect afterward.
Meanwhile, deus ex machina, a term with ancient origins in Greek theater, literally means “god from the machine.” In literature, it refers to a contrived or improbable resolution to a story’s conflict, often involving the sudden intervention of an external and unforeseen force. This force, sometimes divine, miraculously solves the story’s problems. Deus ex machina is typically seen as a narrative flaw because it can undermine the story’s internal logic and leave audiences feeling cheated.
Famous users of this device include the ancient Greek playwrights who employed it in their tragedies. A classic example is Euripides’ “Medea,” in which the deus ex machina ending features the sudden arrival of Helios’s chariot to whisk the titular character away from her gruesome fate.
As another example is, “War of the Worlds” by Herbert George Wells. In the original novel, the story is resolved when the Martian invaders are suddenly killed by bacteria to which they happen to have no immunity. This serves as an example of a natural deus ex machina, as it’s an unanticipated and fortuitous turn of events. Fun fact, in the movie adaptation that is directed by Steven Spielberg, Martians are ultimately defeated when they catch colds (caused by germs as another natural effect) and are unable to fight back against human forces.
Wash your hands and defeat them Martians.
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash
The key difference between eucatastrophe and deus ex machina is in their outcomes. Eucatastrophe leads to a positive and emotionally satisfying conclusion that aligns with the story’s overall themes, while deus ex machina offers a sudden and often unsatisfying solution to a conflict.
Eucatastrophe serves to deepen the emotional engagement of the reader, reinforcing the story’s core themes, and providing a sense of fulfillment. It can create memorable and cathartic moments, making it an essential tool for authors seeking to leave a lasting impact.
Conversely, deus ex machina can feel artificial and unsatisfying, potentially leaving the audience disappointed. It is often seen as a shortcut (in my honest opinion, this must be the best word to use this term in short) to resolve complex narrative problems. In modern storytelling, it is generally considered a less effective and less artful device.
Now, I am aware that deus ex machina seems underrated a lot in my words. I am also not a fan of that literary device all the time. However, I believe this really depends on the works. If the primary focus of any form of artwork relies on the protagonist’s actions, it could feel like the author is cheating. However, conversely, in some more extensive written works, this device can be helpful.
Series, be they movies or novels, can be satisfying with an appropriate amount of narrative. However, an excess of it can also be exhausting. In such cases, deus ex machina is a suitable tool (though, as you can see, it can be a risky one if not used correctly) to bring an event in the story or even the entire story to a close. Therefore, it doesn’t necessarily have to be perceived as a flaw at all times.
In fact, it can be used as somewhat comical instrument, especially in absurd works. It doesn’t necessarily impact the entire story but rather a portion of it. Some troublesome events in the overall plot might be less crucial than others. If those are resolved in a straightforward (boom, just like that) manner, I wouldn’t mind its usage at all (assuming it’s not used excessively).
In any case, the realm of literature is rich. Whether we incorporate these devices into our stories or not, they may sometimes emerge seemingly out of nowhere. They’re not always meant to be there, but sometimes they just happen to exist, much like what occurs in our lives — happy little accidents.
Since “Eucatastrophe” and “Deus Ex Machina” are “plot” methods of narrative techniques (or literary devices/literary techniques), other methods in these articles might interest you:
Comments