deus ex machina, n. 1) 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. 2) A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty. ***

Well, as I was sleeping last night, I realized that Jo has definitely used this approach a fair few times. What struck a cord in me was when Tonks suddenly appeared to Harry's rescue on the Hogwarts Express after Malfoy had smashes his face in.

So, I ask you, does she use this technique because it's easy? Because she has no way to get the plot moving again? Or some other reason(s)?

And feel free you post your own examples of Jo using "god out of a machine".


***definitions courtesy Google Definitions and Dictionary.com




*edited to add footnote*

I don't think she uses Deus Ex Machina much at all. Many things even in real life could be coincidence, and I think that Tonks checking the train was logical. Tonks and the aurors were monitoring Hogwarts that year, and she didn't see him get off the train, and she thought she'd check it out. Actually, it is a common practice to check that all passengers have left trains before they are shut down even in the muggle world. In the wizarding world invisible people is possible, and she noticed the door was shut, remember? That in itself is something that would point out that particular compartment. And of course she'd be looking for him among the crowd, since he's the "Chosen One" and they are friends. I don't think that particular incident is too much or a stretch, although there may be others.

i agree with 'shadowquill' on the Tonks situation. I don't think that particular scene would be the ideal "deus ex machina", I wouldn't view Tonk's arrival as "an unexpected solution to a difficulty", it was as shadowquill said a logical progression but I do kind of feel the actual scene (train carriage, nose breaking, snape encounter etc.) was put in just to connect a few dots in one quick swoop i.e we get some insight in to the Draco world, Snape land and the fascinating territories of Ron and Harry's friendship. I did however always hate that statement of how Ron not laughing at the story was a sign of friendship, I think it just means he's not twisted

In a world of magic Deus Ex Machina is a risk, as well as 'idiot plots'. Obviously Rowling can't tell us all the spells and magical devices that are going to appear in all the books in advance. Since Harry and his friends are students, it makes sense that they are learning gradually, so if they don't know a spell that could have saved them in books 1 or 2 but learn it later in book 4 or 5 that's not a problem. But when a fully trained adult wizard overlooks such an option that borders on 'idiot plot'. And when an adult wizard introduces a situation-saving spell or device that could have helped in earlier situations but wasn't used - we border 'Deus Ex Machina' land.

Some examples that have been pointed out by recent posters: Today Mycroft asked why did Voldemort (or Quirrell, in his name) not try 'Accio Philosopher's Stone' in PS once he was aware that Harry had it in his pocket? Maybe he expected Harry to be able to hold on to it? Or was it because Rowling was waiting to introduce summoning in book 4?
And why was the epic broom journey from 4PD to 12GP necessary if side-along Apparition is possible?

It seems that within each book Rowling is excellent at following Chekhov's Gun rules - magical spells or devices that are going to be crucial in that book are often introduced in the earlier chapters of the same book (eg in book 4 we see Molly summoning Fred and George's order forms, then the kids learn summoning in class, then Harry learns it intensively in preparation for the first task) or hinted at (Hermione's schedule and sudden disappearances and reappearances hinting at her use of a Time Turner). However maintaining a consistent world of spells and devices across books is harder.

I too must conquer with Oryx, Azkaban's Angel, and Shadowquill, however much I would love to theorize, philosophize, and analyze the HP series, I must remember that the basis of this novel was set on the premise that it was intended as an Adolescent Literature piece. Although I know that some would disagree, and please feel free to, but as far as I know the series has not been categorized as adult classic literature; it remains Adolescent. With that being said, I do not believe it was Rowling's intent to include a purposeful Deus Ex Machine, at times the very best struggle with this literary device, and therefore, I do not believe that Rowling would have included such a complicated term; most are ignorant of the meaning never having heard of the term.

Although, most will disagree whole heartedly with HP being in the "Adolescent Lit." genre and rebut with Tolkien's trilogy, and the Chronicles of Narnia; those novels are too included within the same genre...unfortunately. Perhaps they were never meant, for the young aspiring reader with such adult situations and underlying meanings, and would argue the same with HP. It is a phemonina that baffels most, Rowling's literary knowledge is profound...however she does have children at the heart of the matter.

The only true example of deus ex machina that I can find in the books in the time-turner. In all otehr situations I cna think of, whatever happened made sense. But the time-turner seemed like the answer to all their problems. To me it just looked as if Jo finally proved that she can come up with plots even she can't get her characters out of the normal way, and that Dumbledore is not infallible. But once in a while, I think we can forgive Jo. As long as there's no deus ex machina with defeating Voldemort.

I'm not seeing much persuasive evidence of deus ex machina, either. Tonks explained her presence and her save of Harry reasonably enough. If she hadn't been there, Harry would have been delayed getting to Hogwarts, that's all--and Harry not getting to Hogwarts on time is not a major crisis in the plot.

The Time Turner in PoA comes closest to a dem, mostly because a TT can solve nearly all problems and fits the description of godly powers. However, Rowling did not need to resort to the TT to resolve her plot conflicts--for example, when the trio left Hagrid's hut, they could have spirited Buck Beak away at that time without needing Harry and Hermione to return from the future to do the same thing. Fairly simple revisions could have accounted for the rest of the plot, minus the TT. The TT was there more to spice things up and put a twist on the plot that many readers no doubt found more lively than they would have found more mundane plot resolutions to be.

Fawkes aiding Harry with the basilisk was like a dem, but really didn't go far enough over the line to qualify. If Fawkes had defeated the basilisk by himself, and dispatched Riddle in the bargain, then we would be talking about a dem.

DD appearing at the end of Ootp was like a dem--he saved Harry's bacon, but that is more akin to the calvary arriving and was not unexpected since the calvary had already begun to appear with the arrival of the other members of the Order. Also, DD in that scene functioned much more than simply as a way of saving Harry's bacon, so, again, not a true dem.

The two wands canceling each other out in the cemetery duel in GoF--thus saving Harry from destruction--provided a "sudden and unexpected solution to a problem." However, because Rowling told us that the two wands were related way back in the first book, it is not entirely cheating for her to reveal at this late date the significance of that relationship. She did drop one shoe, and we just had to wait a while for her to drop the other shoe--if you follow my idiom.

If you know where the term deus ex machina originates from, then you will see, I think, that we haven't had any scene quite like an original dem. Given that we are dealing with a world of magic, a real dem is not out of the question. So far, though, I don't see evidence that Rowling has made things easy for herself by employing a dem.

But I loved you post!


*

had the kids released Buckbeak without time travel they would have let him fly away and he wouldn't have been around when he was needed to free Sirius. And without time travel Harry wouldn't have been able to drive away the dementors.

My friend thinks the Time Turner thing was an example of this but I disagree. The only example I can think of was Tonks checking the train.

A deus ex machina is really defined by an outside force coming into a story to solve an otherwise unsolvable plot dilemma. For example, two families are going to war based on a misunderstanding known to only one person--and that person is dead. There is no way to stop the war and the ensuing carnage because the only person who could do it is dead. Enter the dem, from the ceiling of the playhouse, lowered onto the stage from the heavens in a machine perhaps in the shape of a chariot pulled by swans--the god out of the machine. The god stops the families from fighting and he explains the misunderstanding, and now all things are smooth, again, thanks to the god. In a Dickens's novel, this would take the form of a solicitor arriving in the final chapter with a notice that someone has died and our long-time debtors are now rich as lords and all their problems are solved.

Rowling has never taken this approach.

To Oryx: if the kids had released BB without the use of the TT, BB could not have flown away--unless Rowling made it so. She could have kept BB around if she wanted to use him later. But she could have invented numerous ways of solving the problems Harry faced, even without changing the plot very much to accommodate the absence of TT. Rowling was never in an unsolvable plot dilemma and never need to resort to a dem, even if she were inclined to go that direction.

*

Tonks checking the train is not a Deus Ex Machina at all. It was her job to do so, once she realised the Chosen one was missing. That's one of the reasons, why she was even stationed in Hogsmeade.

The IMO (literally) biggest Deus Ex Machina in the series was Grawp arriving just in time to save Harry and Hermione for the centaurs. A similar situation is the Ford Anglia arriving just in time to save Harry and on from these dreadul spiders.

What makes events like the arrival of Grawp or the Ford Anglia somewhat more forgivable is that we have been introduced to both of them beforehand. At least we knew they were somewhere in the forest, and their behavior at the scene is consistent with what we knew about them. Not that the kids had any reason to expect their arrival, but at least Rowling did not invent on the spot a special kind of creature, never seen before, that saves the day - as happens a lot in literature for younger ages.

The bold above is mine. That line intrigued me because I wonder if that is a device that is important in children's literature. It seems to me that it reflects the discovery aspect of childhood. Children don't know that this or that exists until they are confronted with it. At some point, everything is brand new; and often it solves problems that seemed impossible. Maybe, if it is present in JKR's work, it is more acceptable because we see things through the eyes of a child, to whom many things are brand new, and solve previously unsolvable problems. Not that in the plot it is DEM, but Harry's escape from Dudley's gang onto the roof of the school, in the context of the event, and removed from later disclosures, is certainly similar to this concept, from the perspective of Harry.

I agree with you - Ford Anglia, Grawp and especially the time-turner were fine examples of Deus Ex Machina. I don't think that eg. Hermione's hints about the time-turner make it any less so. How about Quirrell being not able to touch Harry because of the protection Harry's mother left him? I'd say that also meets the description...

The Ford Anglia possibly, since it isn't "normal behaviour" for a car to run about by itself in the forest. Grawp in my opinion was anything but "deus ex machina" - I was expecting him all the time and was more surprised by the centaurs...

The time-turner might seem like an example of deus ex machina at first but in light of the other books I don't see it that way at all, it is just one device among others to "play around" with the mystery of time (compare the horcruxes, the memories in the pensieve, the bird/egg in the MoM, the phoenix).

dude, the whole entire series is one big deus ex machina. the fact is that spells and potions and all that are whatever JK wants them to be. the goblet is a binding magical contract because otherwise harry would have been kicked off the tournament. the ancient magic that saved harry had to be there. it's not that she's making it up as she goes along, but it all has to make sense somehow. to paraphrase einstein, JK does not play dice with the wizarding world.

btw, tonks didn't just show up out of nowhere. she was tracking harry, so it made sense for her to appear.

I'm not seeing any of these things as the literary deus ex machina. I think it's being confused with 'fortunate' or 'surprising'.
Tonks - As people have already said, Tonks showing up wasn't a mere coincidence. She actually turned out to be guarding. The fact that she helped Harry without him expecting it doesn't make it deus ex machina.

Time Turners - they don't turn up unexpectedly and solve problems. They were hinted at gradually throughout the course of the whole plot and were used in a limited way. Plus the point where Buckbeak is apparantly 'killed' makes a sort of circular plot line, so it's not really a 'Ta da!' ending because the ending ties in with earlier parts of the book.

Magic - although we're always finding out new spells and new uses of magic, there has never been any incidence I can think of where it's been used as a deus ex machina. Harry being helped by somebody who knows more magic than he does isn't deus ex machina. A person not using a spell when perhaps (but possibly not -how could we know?) they could have done isn't deus ex machina. That's the magic of expanding canon.

The only thing I can think of that can be called a deus ex machina is Fawkes, and how he turned up twice from apparantly nowhere to get Harry out of a situation he would otherwise have died hopelessly in. But I don't think this is a the result of writer's block or anything like that. I mean, I think Fawkes is very deliberately and symbolically set up as the deus. On the other hand, he always sticks to the known attributes of phoenixes in Harry Potter and we know he can't always be there. Maybe he's not a deus, but just a very powerful birdie with a great sense of timing.

I think the thing is in all those situations that another solution would have presented itself eventually.
eg. If the car hadn't turned up, they would probably have escaped from something else for example
- remembering a spell
- running for their lives
- someone else turning up
- talking the spiders out of it (perhaps offering them something in return)

And if Tonks hadn't turned up, eventually either:
a) The invisibility cloak would have fallen off Harry (from the movement of the train), he would have been noticed at the next stop or station by the next people getting on, assuming the Hogwarts Express is used more than once a year.
b) The invisibility cloak would have fallen off Harry and he would have been discovered by someone checking the train at the other end, which I think they would do.
c) The invisibility cloak doesn't fall off Harry and whoever cleans the train, I assume it needs cleaning after use, more or less treads on him, realises there's something invisible there and removes the cloak.
d) Someone walks into the train at the next stop, treads on him, realises there's something invisible there, removes the cloak.

Yep yep yep ... I don't think there's any real dem here at all. All the things that have been mentioned were hinted at earlier in the books and/or series, and behave consistenly with what we know of them in the books.

If you want to see a true dem read The Nightsdawn Trilogy by Peter F. Hamilton. He truly gets himself into a spot of bother and solves it by literally having a god sort it all out. I was so totally annoyed by the ending that even tho I really loved those books (til the last few pages) I haven't read them again because it annoys me so much.

Never having been a fan of literary discussions before, I am not very familiar with the term "plot device." I do not doubt that I have heard it before, back in my school days, but that was a very long time ago and I don't remember. I am not sure exactly what it means. I would think that anything that happened in any of these novels (or any other for that matter) could be called a plot device, but every time I have seen that term used (here on the Leaky Lounge) it seemed to imply that the incident being called that was not very believable or a characters character was being compromised to advance the plot.

One example of this it the question of how Harry was able to see Snape's memories in the Pensieve. It has been said that that was just a plot device, Jo wanted Harry (and us) to see that memory and had Snape do what had to be done in order for that to happen, and the question of what Snape was thinking when he chose to do what he did is moot; Snape had nothing to do with it, it was Jo's decision and hers alone.

Another example concerns the Time-Turner. Many believe that that was just a way of getting Sirius and Buckbeak out of an impossible situation and such a device could not possibly exist, even in a fantasy world. It would be silly, therefore, to try to explain exactly what a Time-Turner is or does; it is just a plot device, nothing more.

So do I understand this correctly? Does the use of the term "plot device" automaticly imply that it is not a very good one?

I think that anyone saying that time turners and such are "just plot devices" is being a bit cynical, and needs to let it go and enjoy the story. In a magical world, a lot of unrealistic stuff is possible, which can be tempting for an author when trying to advance the plot. I think JKR has done a wonderful job of resisting the temptation to put in ill-disguised plot devices. She could have done much worse.

Plot device isn't always bad... It just suggests that there is a way that Jo wants the plot to unfold, but she hasn't specifically planned HOW the plot will get somewhere... she might say "And Harry is sorted into a house" on the first draft, but it isn't until later that she goes in and creates the hat... the sorting hat is a plot device to make sorting unbiased. In later books, the history of the sorting hat elevates it from plot device to a meaningful magical object.

Plot devices are necessary in writing... not every detail is planned out at the first draft. Sometimes, things just NEED to happen, like Ron needs to see Tom Riddle's name in the Trophey room... his detention with Filch is a plot device to give us that information... the detention serves no other real purpose. The pensieve is a huge plot device in Goblet of Fire, because it give the readers the necessary clues to understand the twist ending, with Barty Crouch Jr. as the antagonist.

I couldn't agree with you more. As for the time-turner element being passed off as just a plote device Professor_Nigellus, I think its relevance to the overall plot of PoA is too important to be merely swept aside and referred to as a plot device. Jo meant it as part of the overall plot of the story, I don't think it just came about one day on a whim in order for her to resolve the Buckbeak/Sirius matter. However, to each his/her own opinion!

I'm more familiar with the term "plot device" in script writing. It can be good or bad, but a plot device is usually something cliche or so commonly used that ceases to be consider a creative choice.
Usually a plot device is thrown into a story to invoke a emotional reponse or an easy way to get a character from point 'a" to point "b" and to cover up the fact that there is not a good literary or ethical, or artistic reason for the event.

Have you ever seen Arnold's THE LAST ACTION HERO? It's a good example of the over use of plot device to advance a story. I would not call it judgemental--it's a critical term.

Changing events through time is very common theme in science fiction and fantasy. But I wouldn't say Jo uses it as a plot device, because going back in time doesn't solve everything, (Only Sirius life is saved and that is temporary.) Time becomes a part of the seam of things in a story about justice denied. Why only go back to that evening, why not to night of prophesy and stop Snape from going to Voldemort. Certain Dumbldore must have been tempted. Jo solves the plot device by destroying it, but it doesn't mean the bad guys will not get one.

A plot device is more a plot where Dumbledore is not really dead... It would be the old man with the beard never dies device.

Good question: good answers. I don't know much about plot devices either.

Would the horcruxes be a plot device? Maybe a way to make the defeat of LV even more difficult, and make LV even more evil than the power-hungry terrorist he is? His first murder was his father, and was done primarily to try to gain more immortality for himself by creating his first horcrux. That's pretty ugly stuff. So I wonder if the horcruxes would qualify as a plot device?

For me, the answer is quite simple: If you don't find a good, convincing answer within the written universe you call it a plot device (which is an explanation from outside of that universe). The main point is that everyone calls something else a "plot device" because it depends on what you consider a satsfying answer from within the universe.

I like Maime the Hunter's answer. What most of you are calling plot devices are simply magic that can't be explained by physics in our world cause it simply doesn't exist but the laws of physics can change in an invented universe. The author is God and says "time travel is possible' and there it is. After all, there are people flying on broomsticks and turning a rat into a teacup, so why can't they have pensieves and travel in time.

To be honest, I never saw 'plot device' as a negatively connotated term. It is not a qualifier, IMO. It is just that there are good believable plot devices, which tie in perfectly with the overall plot, and there are bad contrived plot devices, which always feel strange and artificially within the story.

A lot of that is certainly due to personal preferences. I personally don´t like Time travelling, and while the whole Time turner sequence in PoA was nicely done, I don´t see how it is relevant to the overall plot. I´m sure it could have been done differently.

Anyway, I would see for example some items, persons or interactions are plot devices to drive the plot, or sub-plots or characters. JKR has used a lot of them but within her anyway fictional magical world most of them feel real, believalbe and - what is probably most important for plot devices - do not stand out as such with 'plot device' written in huge letters all over them.

To me a plot device that has been used would be like the fact that Sprout just happened to be growing Mandrake roots in CoS. Something they would need finished by the end of the year to unpetrify everyone. However it is believeable that her character would have access to these things so it isn't a bad idea. However both Sprout and Flitwick seem to be filler characters to complete the heads of houses, they never get character development within the books.

Some terms change with times. Sancho is Don Quixote's "sidekick' but we know Sancho is the more practical of the two. Doctor Watson is companion and stablilzing influence to Sherlock Holmes who is brilliant but a little unstable--it's the pipe. Lancelot--well, he was considered the better warrior and he ran off with his hero's wife, but he did return in the end.

Through the years the term sidekick became defined by images: Robin, Pancho to the Cisco Kid, Tonto--rather than stablizing companion the Sidekick becomes court jester, child substitute, gofer. When someone says sidekick, we expect someone slightly asexual with bad aim, who-erm--is probably at some point in the story going to be kidnapped.

At one time "Plot device" only meant that the writer need a reason or method to get a character from point A to point B. In critical circles now, it means "we've seen this". Few critics thought that Dumbledore was really dead until Jo announced Dumbledore was dead. And killing Dumbledore was a plot device. Jo's wanted Harry to evolve from Boy who leans on mentor, to Man who stands alone. It appears Jo has no intention of allowing any adult to save Harry's bacon in the end. July 31 in the HP world, Harry turns seventeen and he is an adult wizard. Harry has his friends, but in the end it will be just Harry and Voldemort. It has to be only Harry--the warrior with love as his shield, and Voldemort seizing about all the Dark Forces and the absence of Love. To isolate Harry, the device Jo uses is Character Death. She moves up the legal age of wizards, so that Harry loses on his birthday, the last vestage of protection from his parents. She gives him a house, but not a home, and it seems she forces himself away from the Weasley, so he is without refuge or hiding place. Jo burns his bridges. She may kill or cripple his companions. She will probably neutralize his detrators (Malfoy and Snape). All of these things could be considered Plot Devices.
Some Plot Devices are better and less common than others. It is when a plot device becomes cliche that the negative connatation of the term comes in.

True enough about DD's death being a plot Device however the death of the "Old Greybeard" though used multiple times need not be cliche. I cried with DD's death even though I suspected that it would happen, it depends if the Plot Device is just a cheap way to get things done or if there is impact. I think there was, this was a coming of age, Harry needed to take the reins and the only way was for DD to die, otherwise Harry would defer to DD, look to DD, Harry would never take charge if he coudl let DD do so.

Merlin doesn't exactly die. He's locked up in a tree. Gandalf comes back. Aslan is more old golden mane than grey beard, but he comes back to save the day. Obi wan doesn't come back, but he's there to spur Luke on when Luke has The Crisis of Faith.

Maybe this is what Jo meant when she says Dumbledore is giving her problems; she possibly wants to avoid any "Use the Force" Luke comparisons in Harry's and Dumbledore's after death relationship.

I cried at the cave scene when Dumbledore leaned on Harry and said he wasn't worried because Harry was with him. I was numb when he died until I read the part about Harry straightening his glasses and GInny pulling him away from the body.

I agree with you that I think Jo wants DD to have done something and not make it seem that he is coming back. A thought to me was leaving behind some sort of "last message" and how to realisticaly get it to Harry, in that I have thought of either Fawkes and/or Aberforth. Would those be considered cheap plot devices if all either one did was bring a last letter from Albus to Harry?

There are other less famous "Greybeards" that die and do not come back, or at least give a last message deal. I wouldn't want to spoil any of those books but if you like I can PM you a long list of them lol.

I thought Merlin was locked up in a Cave? Kept away from Arthur and for all intents "dead" to the outside world. Obi Wan and Yoda both died, letting Luke go foward and be the one to face Vader and the Emperor. Gandalf ceased being in Frodo's presence though letting him finish the journey with Sam and Gollum alone. Then you have the classic Pual Atriedes and his father role in Dune, his father died and Pual sought revenge for his father and justice for Dune.

I like to give author's the benefit of the doubt if I can beliveable enjoy the characters as I did with Dumbledore, there are those that I didn't so much and to me the PLot Devices became cliche and boring.

Simply moving a character from point a to point b is something more along the lines of deus ex mechanica (i.e. it was all just a dream) ... its just a manufactured way to solve a problem. A plot device actually helps to advance the story naturally and coherently. Poorly written, a plot device could come off as contrived. I think the pensieve is an excellent plot device. Sure it is a construct created by Jo to allow us to look into the past but it fits in so cleanly that you dont see it as poorly executed.

I agree. There are good plot devices and bad ones. The Pensieve is a clever, believable device within the realms of the magical world JKR has created. I have a hunch it will play a part in DH as well. Harry could learn some important information from memories DD has left. As long as it is not overused, it will be fine.

There have been some good comments in this thread and I think that I understand the term a little better now. All stories have plot devices, some are good and some less so. I think it is only the bad ones that get mentioned is casual conversation because the good ones just flow with the story and are frequently not even perceived as such. Neville's Remembrall might be an example of a good one for it not only fulfilled its primary function of serving as a catalyst for Harry's confrontation with Malfoy, it also helped to define the magical world, contributed to Neville's character and provided some comic relief. Consequently, no one ever said that was just a plot device to get Harry on the Gryffindor Quidditch team; it was that, but it wasn't only that.

The uses of this term that I took exception to may involve parts of the story that have not yet been fully told. If Snape was trying to hide his memories from Harry and did it in so foolish a fashion that it resulted in Harry seeing that memory in more detail than Voldemort could have seen with Legilimency, than it was a very bad plot device for it is difficult to believe that a character as clever and cunning as Severus Snape could do anything that stupid. On the other hand, if it turns out that Snape wanted Harry to see that memory, for one reason or another, and set a clever trap for him, then it was a pretty good one. There are thoes of us (myself among them) who hold to that theory, but none of us have ever called it that.

Exactly. It could help to qualify a plot device as good or bad if it a) flows with the story and is a such not really evident as a plot device, b) is believable within story and c) serves multiple purposes as for example Neville´s Remembrall.

Do you mean: deus ex machina?


My understanding is the deus ex machina is that it is a plot device that represent magical or devine intervention.

In Harry Potter the perfect deus ex machina is in GOF the Priori Incantatem. Realistically, Harry was dead. But Harry is the Hero and cannot die until Book seven so he needed the interference of the gods so to speak to get out of this situation.

As I understand it, a plot device unlike the deus ex machina does not have to be magical or devine intervention, it could be an expected solution to a moral dilemma. For example in Alien Vs Predator, we have been so inuedated with the "horror" of the Alien in the belly scenario,we watched and applaud the herione as she kills the attractive almost a love interest character. The plot device is the suffering of the person impregnated with the alien. The Return of Greybeard is another plot device for some. Greybeard or the mentor as a spirit guide (Ghost, through letters, or magical portraits) is another.
Answers.com has a nice list of plot devices: www.answers.com/topic/plot-device

Depends on the version you read: their are many. Hawthorn or oak tree, thorn tree, crystal cave....

In the interests of a cohesive discussion, I've just splinched another thread discussing the merits of plot devices with this one.

So ... discussion could home in on the deus ex machina, foreshadowing, plot twist, red herring, story within a story ... there's a wide variety of plot devices to choose from.

Here's a starter for ten ...

Which plot devices do you think JK Rowling chose for her Potterverse, and why?

Narya
Leaky Mod

That might be a little premature. I said earlier that it would be unfair to judge the quality of the plot devices until the story is fully told, likewise I think it would be difficult to categorise them before July 21. Most people would agree that the locket that nobody could open that Sirius threw out while cleaning Grimmauld Place was foreshadowing though the possibility exists that it was a red herring. If it was foreshadowing then there are two other incidents to categorise: Kreacher's habit of saving items from Sirius' purge and Mundungus robbing the place. Most people would agree that one is foreshadowing and the other a red herring, the debate is, which is which.

I can agree that the Time-Turner is a kind of plot device, but again; what kind? Many people dislike it on the grounds that it is or has the potential to be a deus ex machina; not only was it a not very believable way of resolving the cliff-hanger Sirius and Buckbeak were in, none of it ever happened it was only a disposable time-line would be the mother of all deus es machina's. Personally, I think the Time-Turner could turn out to be a form of plot twist if this device proves to have a function quite different from what most people think it is; and if I am right, it will be a very good one because my opinion on what that function is was published in Scribbulus over a year ago, and to my knowledge, absolutely no one has ever agreed with it.

I reckon Jo used a major deus ex machina in DH I felt that Ron suddenly being able to imitate parseltongue to enter the COS and destroy a horcrux with the basilisk fang was too convenient. Perhaps I'm being overly critical, but to be able to perfectly imitate snake language after only a few trys?

As an English teacher, I must say that there is some confusion as to what deus ex machina actually refers to in a literary work. It is when a character, object or event occurs or appears suddenly to fix or solve an unsolvable situation and the reader must suspend his/her belief and accept what happened.

I must say that there were times I did think to myself, "Oh, that is handy" or "C'mon J.K., that was easy", but never did any event or character "just appear" to solve an unsolvable situation.

On the train - she could have had Harry go back to London and have a teacher (even Snape) have to apperate to get him. She could have had the lady with the trolly who distributes the sweets find Harry. She could have had Ron or Hermione notice him missing and go looking for him and step on him....etc. Harry was not in an IMMOSSIBLE situation. Was it believable for Tonks to be there? Yes, maybe not as believable as another scenario that we could come up with, but still believable.

Is it possible that Ron was able to repeat the snake language well enough for the chamber to open, yes... not as believable as Harry destroying that horcrux later. It is no more of a stretch to believe that Crabbe or Goyle (I can't remember which right now) cast the fiend fire which just happens to be one on the few ways in which to destroy a horcrux. It is believable because we know it is an evil curse and Crabbe or Goyle would love the chance to try it out.

Was it possible that Crevey was there for the final battle? Yes, just how he got there (if it is not as simple as him just not leaving Hogwarts) is not known.

Even the time turners do not get them out of an IMPOSSIBLE situation. Dumbledore could have done some other spell, Snape could have done legilimency on him, etc.

I can not think of one instance of true dues ex machina in the series. It does not mean that it's not there. If anyone sees differently (especially my former students who post here), please share your thoughts.

If Potter is a children's series - and since it is identified as such I suspect one must go along with that notion - then the requirement for things to make sense is not as great as it would be in say young adult literature. One could for example - in a child's book , have houses that glowed in the dark and have no need to explan why such occurs. But in young adult literature - simply because we are talking about older "children" who have started to figure out that the universe operates with laws etc - the need for events to be plausibly explained is greater and so we do not find unexplained houses glowing in the dark. My observation is that once we got into books 3 and certainly 4 - the series seemed less like a children's book and more like young adult literature - the story becomes darker - more frightening and more complex. I thought that this happened because JKR was expecting her audience to grow up along with the books and her characters.

I do not see deux et machina in the strict meaning of the term in the books - although I do see events which seem unlikely - or contrived to me.

Er ok, it seems to me that you can really point at anything that brings the plot further and call it plot device.
So I don't really see anything negative about that.

Anyway, one plot device I just thought of is Hermione.
I do like Hermione, but is there any limit to what she can learn and knows?
She has basically outsmarted adult wizards since the beginning.
I know the thing about her is that she's smart, she studies a lot and occasionally JK has thrown in a scene where she appears to be struggling, but that just seems like a way for her to make it at least a bit more realistic.
And really, as smart as though she is, how does that necessarily make her a better witch that the rest? Anybody can read instructions from a book and just follow them and everybody does I expect, so how come she's so superior?

And Harry would most certainly have been pushing up the daisies had she not always been around to save his day.

Not quite, IMO. JKR has had Ron hear Harry using Parselmouth to open something twice. Once back in second year in that very bathroom, and a second time just a couple of months ago when Harry opened the locket. Furthermore, JKR has established Ron as someone who has a certain talent for imitation. He did it at least once in DH, when he imitated Wormtail at Malfoy Manor. Plus, it has never been stated in canon that it is impossible for someone to copy the sounds of Parsel.

Maybe it was a bit convenient, but I don´t think it was a major deus ex machine, or a deus ex machina at all.

Hermione´s purpose in the story was mainly being the information giver. Was it then necessary for her to master every spell and get them out of every situation? I don´t know. She was borderline unbelievable to me in DH, at least in two or three scenes and I wished JKR had not glossed over her weaknesses but put them under scrutiny just like she did with Harry´s and Ron´s. But can we lable her a plot device because of that? I don´t think so. Then every character is in a way a plot device.

So, plot device is, like pranko
said, basically anything that furthers the plot, isn´t it?

The only plot device, or maybe this was even a kind of deus ex machina(?), I have problems with is the time turner used in PoA. Was that really necessary? They could have saved Buckbeak and Sirius by other means. But hey, it was certainly clever written, so I don´t mind it that much (a bit though ;) )

maybe a better way to further this discussion is to abandon the deux et machina requirement and simply look at plot devices which seem implausible, contrived or overly coincidental etc.

I thought the event where Ron abandons hois buddies and then conveniently arrives in time to resacue Harry from drowning after Harry has followed the silver doe and then falls intot he water to retrieve the sword of gryffindor a bit too coincidental - and why on earth would Snape place the sword in a pool when the hero could potentially drown ( or catch peneumonia) while retieving it ?? That seemed a bit implausible to me.

I think Ron explained his parting and return to my satisfaction, people are simply not giving that Locketcrux enough credit. It was doing to him what the Diarycrux did to Ginny. Ron was the most suseiple to the locket because he was the Heart of the Trio.

Snape put the Sword into the pool because you apparently cannot simply hand the thing over. One must EARN it through Bravery and Valor. So into the Pool it went, the fact that Ron showed up was incidental to Snape's original plan.

The first thing that came to mind after I read the OP's comments was Dobby. Although he may not have qualified as a deus ex machina, because he wasn't an "outside force" but an established, recurring character from CoS onwards, he did seem like a plot device to me at certain points. Perhaps I'm the only one who felt that way, but sometimes I couldn't help feeling that his appearances throughout the story were just too timely. When Harry woke up on the morning of the Second Task, he still had no solution in sight, but then Dobby handed him the gillyweed -- which Dobby had conveniently found for him. When the DA needed a place to study and practice DADA in secret, no one had any viable ideas, but then Dobby led Harry to the Room of Requirement -- which Dobby conveniently had found before and could find again. When Harry and Ron ended up in the Malfoys' cellar, they had no means of getting themselves or the other prisoners out, but then Dobby suddenly appeared to assist them in Hermione's rescue and their escape -- at that moment of all moments, after they were captured in the forest, before Hermione was tortured into insanity by Bellatrix, right when they were both physically trapped and mentally/emotionally at the breaking point, but were not yet physically harmed beyond recovery. I realize that Dobby served more than one purpose in the story, so I fully understand the need for his character. However, some of his scenes definitely required much more suspension of disbelief than others in my opinion.

See the thing about Dobby and the 2nd Task was that Crouch Jr laid hints for him to over hear. Dobby being the good and honorable and so Harry's man through and through would of course go and tell Harry. Harry requested info on the RoR in OOTP and Abeforth sent Dobby in DH to go and help Harry, after Harry used the mirror to call for help.