Editing Deus ex machina (section)

==Criticism==
The ''deus ex machina'' device is often criticized as inartistic, too convenient, and overly simplistic. However, champions of the device say that it opens up ideological and artistic possibilities.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Vaatmann |first=Veiko |date=2022-07-01 |title=In defence of deus ex machina |url=https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/josc/2022/00000013/00000002/art00002;jsessionid=4piirddiqfbob.x-ic-live-02 |journal=Journal of Screenwriting |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=155–167 |doi=10.1386/josc_00091_1|s2cid=252424778 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="ghosts">{{cite journal |last1=Breton |first1=Rob |title=Ghosts in the Machina: Plotting in Chartist and Working-Class Fiction |journal=Victorian Studies |date=Summer 2005 |volume=47 |issue=4 |pages=557–575 |doi=10.1353/vic.2006.0003}}</ref>

===Ancient criticism===
[[Antiphanes (comic poet)|Antiphanes]] was one of the device's earliest critics. He believed that the use of the ''deus ex machina'' was a sign that the playwright was unable to properly manage the complications of his plot.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal |last1=Handley |first1=Miriam |title=Shaw's response to the deus ex machina: From the Quintessence of Ibsenism to ''Heartbreak House'' |journal=Theatre: Ancient & Modern, January 1999 Conference | date=January 1999 |isbn=9780749285777 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rfUCAgAACAAJ}}</ref>
{{blockquote|when they don't know what to say

and have completely given up on the play

just like a finger they lift the machine

and the spectators are satisfied. | Antiphanes}}

Another critical reference to the device can be found in [[Plato]]'s dialogue ''[[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]'', 425d, though it is made in the context of an argument unrelated to drama.

[[Aristotle]] criticized the device in his ''[[Poetics (Aristotle)|Poetics]]'', where he argued that the resolution of a plot must arise internally, following from previous action of the play:<ref>Janko (1987, 20)</ref>
{{blockquote|In the characters, too, exactly as in the structure of the incidents, [the poet] ought always to seek what is either necessary or probable, so that it is either necessary or probable that a person of such-and-such a sort say or do things of the same sort, and it is either necessary or probable that this [incident] happen after that one. It is obvious that the solutions of plots, too, should come about as a result of the plot itself, and not from a contrivance, as in the ''Medea'' and in the passage about sailing home in the ''[[Iliad]]''. A contrivance must be used for matters outside the drama — either previous events, which are beyond human knowledge, or later ones that need to be foretold or announced. For we grant that the gods can see everything. There should be nothing improbable in the incidents; otherwise, it should be outside the tragedy, e.g., that in [[Sophocles]]' ''[[Oedipus Rex|Oedipus]]''. |''[[Poetics (Aristotle)|Poetics]]'' |(1454a33–1454b9) }}

Aristotle praised Euripides, however, for generally ending his plays with bad fortune, which he viewed as correct in tragedy, and somewhat excused the intervention of a deity by suggesting that "astonishment" should be sought in tragic drama:<ref>''Poetics'' 11.5, Penguin (1996, 45).</ref>
{{blockquote|Irrationalities should be referred to what people say: That is one solution, and also sometimes that it is not irrational, since it is probable that improbable things will happen.}}

Such a device was referred to by [[Horace]] in his ''[[Ars Poetica (Horace)|Ars Poetica]]'' (lines 191–2), where he instructs poets that they should never resort to a "god from the machine" to resolve their plots "unless a difficulty worthy of a god's unraveling should happen" [''nec deus intersit, nisi dignus uindice nodus inciderit; nec quarta loqui persona laboret''].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.poetryfoundation.org/learning/essay/237830?page=3 |title=Ars Poetica by Horace |date=21 September 2017 |website=Poetry Foundation}}</ref>

===Modern criticism===
Following Aristotle, Renaissance critics continued to view the ''deus ex machina'' as an inept plot device, although it continued to be employed by Renaissance dramatists.

Toward the end of the 19th century, [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] criticized Euripides for making tragedy an optimistic [[genre]] by use of the device, and was highly skeptical of the "Greek cheerfulness," prompting what he viewed as the plays' "blissful delight in life."<ref>Nietzsche (2003, 85).</ref> The ''deus ex machina'' as Nietzsche saw it was symptomatic of [[Socrates|Socratic]] culture, which valued knowledge over [[Apollonian and Dionysian|Dionysiac]] music and ultimately caused the death of tragedy:<ref>Nietzsche (2003, 84–86).</ref>
{{blockquote| But the new non-Dionysiac spirit is most clearly apparent in the ''endings'' of the new dramas. At the end of the old tragedies there was a sense of metaphysical conciliation without which it is impossible to imagine our taking delight in tragedy; perhaps the conciliatory tones from another world echo most purely in ''[[Oedipus at Colonus]]''. Now, once tragedy had lost the genius of music, tragedy in the strictest sense was dead: for where was that metaphysical consolation now to be found? Hence an earthly resolution for tragic dissonance was sought; the hero, having been adequately tormented by fate, won his well-earned reward in a stately marriage and tokens of divine honour. The hero had become a gladiator, granted freedom once he had been satisfactorily flayed and scarred. Metaphysical consolation had been ousted by the ''deus ex machina''.|Friedrich Nietzsche}}
Nietzsche argued that the ''deus ex machina'' creates a false sense of consolation that ought not to be sought in phenomena.<ref>Nietzsche (2003, 80).</ref> His denigration of the plot device has prevailed in critical opinion.
 
In ''Euripides the Rationalist'' (1895), [[Arthur Woollgar Verrall]] surveyed and recorded other late 19th-century responses to the device. He recorded that some of the critical responses to the term referred to it as 'burlesque', 'coup de théâtre', and 'catastrophe'. Verrall notes that critics have a dismissive response to authors who deploy the device in their writings. He comes to the conclusion that critics feel that the ''deus ex machina'' is evidence of the author's attempt to ruin the whole of his work and to prevent anyone from putting any importance on his work.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

However, other scholars have looked at Euripides' use of ''deus ex machina'' and described its use as an integral part of the plot, designed for a specific purpose. Often, Euripides' plays would begin with gods, so it is argued that it would be natural for the gods to finish the action. The conflict throughout Euripides' plays would be caused by the meddling of the gods, so it would make sense both to the playwright and to the audience of the time that the gods would resolve all conflict that they began.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Abel |first1=D. Herbert |title=Euripides' Deus ex Machina: Fault or Excellence |journal=The Classical Journal |date=December 1954 |volume=50 |issue=3 |pages=127–130 }}</ref> Half of Euripides' eighteen extant plays end with the use of ''deus ex machina'', therefore it was not simply a device to relieve the playwright of the embarrassment of a confusing plot-ending. This device enabled him to bring about a natural and more dignified dramatic and tragic ending.<ref>{{cite book |last1= Flickinger |first1=Roy Caston |title=The Greek Theatre and its Drama |date=1926 |publisher=The University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago, Illinois}}</ref>

Other champions of the device believe that it can be a spectacular agent of subversion. It can be used to undercut generic conventions and challenge cultural assumptions and the privileged role of tragedy as a literary/theatrical model.<ref name=ghosts />

Some 20th-century revisionist criticism suggests that ''deus ex machina'' cannot be viewed in these simplified terms, and contends that the device allows mortals to "probe" their relationship with the divine.<ref name="Rehm 1992, 71">Rehm (1992, 71).</ref> [[Rush Rehm]] in particular cites examples of Greek tragedy in which the ''deus ex machina'' complicates the lives and attitudes of characters confronted by the deity, while simultaneously bringing the drama home to its audience.<ref name="Rehm 1992, 71" /> Sometimes, the unlikeliness of the ''deus ex machina'' plot device is employed deliberately. An example is shown through the comic effect generated in ''[[Monty Python's Life of Brian]],'' when Brian, who lives in [[Judea]] at the time of [[Christ (title)|Christ]], is saved from a high fall by a passing [[ancient astronauts|alien spaceship]].<ref>James Berardinelli, James. [http://preview.reelviews.net/movies/l/life_brian.html "Review: Life of Brian"]. Reelviews Movie Reviews. 2003</ref>