You keep making such egregious errors, I can only conclude you are following the rule of trolldom, "make obvious errors to encourage people to reply and point them out". The self-humiliating troll is an accurate description of yourself. At least the only one that makes sense.
I said "The whole subject of deus ex machina was introduced by yourself as a criticism of the story."
You said "No, .."
Now, what was the rest of that '...'? Something tells me you took a random 'no' and placed it in a new context. Very suspect.
I have asked a very simple question: "How are the actions of the parents inconsistent with the logic of the story?????"
You put that in quotes and you mention that you "have asked", yet such wording is not present in your previous posts. As pointed out previously such a question does not exist, even in generous attempts at rewording. Else you could provide a link.
You argue that, "Perhaps you should explain how the parents cleaning the room are not consistent to the logic of the story" was such an inquiry and was not answered. However, such a question (as with your story) is flawed in its premise, and that was duely pointed out. Pointing it out was met with nothing more than a tantrum. A tantrum that you were not able to sluff off yet another flawed premise. You didn't respond to the arguments made, just complained that I didn't accept the premise and answer the question.
What premise is that? As if you need ask as it was dealt with previously. However, assuming that your comprehensions skills are suspect rather than your ingeniousness, I will explain further. You presume that capacity to alter the outcome of the story, if inherent to the characters of the story is not Deus ex Machina. No? Heres your quote, "the point was, the ending is perfectly consistent with the internal logic of the story. It is just a room, and the parents can clean it."
Clearly you are arguing that the capacity to clean a room disqualifies the parents as performing a Deus ex Machina for the protagonist (I clumsily misspoke earlier describing the adolescent as a antagonist, something pointed out to me by an observer of this thread who, with me, doesn't see why you are so inept). Clearly you are arguing that this capacity is internally logical to the story, when it is simply a premise. Neither of these are the case.
Capacity, inherent to the charectars of the story, does not preclude an event to being a DeM. If it were so, then even Moses parting the Red Sea would be precluded as DeM. But that is a contradiction since it is a DeM therefore your logic is awry. As pointed out previously, "your logic is in err, to say that it is consistant to the internal logic of the story and is therefore not DeM would even disqualify Moses parting the Red Sea. After all it is just a river, and God can part it."
The flaw in your argument is not unknown. It was found and presented to you. It can be explained in the second part of the argument, that the capacity is internal to the logic of the story. There is a premise that "parents can clean a room". But then so can consider that in the ordinary workings of life, so can the protagonist. But can he?
I became more and more frustrated, lashing out at the rubbish with my gored fists, decimating it in my fury, and sending more fragments scattering around the room.
The task was greater than the protagonist, this was winding up to be a tragedy. The protagonist, you appear to be arguing, was incapable of cleaning the room. Yet, a protagonist can clean there room, can they not? No, not in this case, and you've already established that this room was more difficult to clean up, a special challenge. This is no ordinary mess, so we cannot presume that the parents can clean it up.
So then one is left to ponder, just how do the Parents do it?
Eventually my parents despaired and finally realised their responsibilities, sending me downstairs to bandage my hurts, and clearing the rest of the mess as best they could. When I came back later, they set me some small part to clear until finally the room was liveable again, though ever besmirched and stained with my lifeblood. I was pleased, until they called me downstairs for a chat.
There is no reason, hint, or clue given as to how the parents were able to clean the room. No hint to what capacity they had the protagonist did not that allowed them to clean the room. Quite simply there is no logic here to rely on that establishes their capacity. "Parents can clean a room," you may point out (as the author this is the only explanation you provided). But this, as pointed out previously, is simply the premise. It is not the "inherent logic". The premise becomes the conclusion, a tautological triumph, and a logical fallacy.
As I argued previously, "And to add stupidity to ignorance you take what should be called the 'premise' and instead call it 'the logic of the story,' as if declaring it as such makes it logical. Its not that you don't see the problems that people are pointing out to you, you are simply having a tantrum that people should accept your premise. And a tantrum is no way to convince people."
Your logical flaw predicted reductio-ad-absurdum, is revealed. One could even argue that such a tautological device is a good way to explain what Deus ex Machina is. But that comes later.
So lets compare what you wrote as an obvious Deus ex Machina to what I label as such in your story.
I continued to try to clean our mess with my parents, but no matter what we tried, nothing would avail. Luckily then, Dad pulled out his new vaccuum cleaner, an enormous red steam powered humming motherfucker. "LOL, I bought this the other day," he shouted gleefully, "It's one of those new Due Suxa Machines."
The mess was cleared up with a flash of light so we all flew to the moon on a crocodile and I got a choc ice.
I'll note for the humor impaired that a "Deu Suxa Machine" can clean up a room! Thus consistent with the logic of the story! Wait, no I'm just adding lemon juice to the open wound. I'll deal with it more seriously.
The use of the super-natural vacuum no more explains the capacity to clean the room than was offered in the origional story, "When I came back later, they set me some small part to clear until finally the room was liveable again". Clearly we see that with "some small part" the protagonist was given some role that was not dependant on the overall outcome. So we are left to wonder once again just how it was accomplished. Niether is the use of the vacuum any more expected to occur than the parents intervention.
Now lets look at Google's collection of definitions of "Deus ex Machina"...
An unrealistic or unexpected intervention to rescue the protagonists or resolve the conflict. [...] In a modern example of deus ex machina, a writer might reach a climactic moment in which a band of pioneers were attacked by bandits. A cavalry brigade's unexpected arrival to drive away the marauding bandits at the conclusion, with no previous hint of the cavalry's existence, would be a deus ex machina conclusion. Such endings mean that heroes are unable to solve their own problems in a pleasing manner, and they must be "rescued" by the writer himself through improbable means.
That last definition specifically nails your plot device. But lets look at the others too. So what made the parents intervention unexpected? This is established by yourself...
This refers to a plot contrivance in fiction, where the resolution comes from an outside source
Any active agent who appears unexpectedly to solve an apparently insoluble difficulty.
a divinty who appears suddenly at the end of a play (usually a tragedy) to solve an otherwise insoluble solution.
the resolution of the plot by the device of a god ("deus") arriving onstage by means of a crane ("machina") and solving all the characters' problems.
reliance on providential intervention or other unspecified means for the solution of an otherwise unsolvable human problem.
any active agent who appears unexpectedly to solve and insoluble difficulty
I had told my parents what I was about to do. In fact, I had gone to them for their blessing. Of course, they didn't give it, not then; they felt my actions were senseless and stupid. ... they weren't convinced. [that term was used three times] ...
In these passages you paint the parents as unwilling participants in cleaning the room. Their subsequent intervention is unexpected (and I'll point out that in analog, the UN's intervention to the degree you describe in the story is unexpected even now).
So I went to speak to my parents again, and brought them up to my room.
At first they couldn't believe I had gone ahead and acted anyway. "What was the point of that?" they asked, horrified at the wreckage. "If you had to smash something (for whatever reason) why weren't you more careful, why did you spread so much around and grind it into your carpet?" But they didn't get it. I informed them haughtily "It doesn't matter how or why the mess was created, or even by who anymore. The important point is that it is here, and we must deal with it like responsible adults." They looked unconvinced.
... They looked at each other, and left. I swear they can be so childish sometimes.
So I began to clean up our mess on my own.
The story became a protagonist (alone) versus his room after the parents turned down numerous requests for help and their disdain for the whole affair established the unlikelyhood of their intervention. Yet they come in, through means unestablished and unknown to the story save the hero from what he was unable to conquer on his own.
They were the will that saves the house from being sold, the cavalry that saves the band of fighters, the god that comes in and solves the charectars problems. Your device is a Deus ex machina.
But then again this isn't anything I haven't explained adequately already. Your problem was in lack of comprehension, admit it.
On to some more points...
"Before the problem was that I didn't comprehended, now the problem is that comprehended what you meant to keep hidden." as though your interpretation is some iron clad certainty, shared by all the people who have read the story.
No, it is an iron clad certainty shared by the author who intended it in the story. A point you (as the author) conceded and was quoted as support for that phrase.
You taking phrases away from their supporting arguments is an egregious omission. Sometimes I am left to ponder who let you get away with such shenanigans in the past that you rely on them so heartily.
These "places where it does not resemble reality" are places where you are creating your own reality
One person has quoted real life events to establish their view of reality, another person wrote a work of fiction to support their view of reality. The latter has also complained on numerous occasions that the internal logic of their fictional representation is something to accept without argument, litterally throwing a tantrum at those questioning it.
As you are that latter person, (Disagree? Prove me wrong and show where you showed one reference to the UN being able to clean up messes in real life, or even answered my real life evidence to the contrary).
I dare say your stance on such a platform sevierly comprimises you ability to cast judgement. Your problem is not only that of arrogance and ignorance, but lack of comprehension.
I did see the future, when I said "do try to supply arguments, not just appeals to audience [...], or ad hominem attacks,"
False, and a red-herring even if it were true. A conclusion is not a logical fallacy, and it is the conclusion of your egregious fallaciousness that you quote. Once again you summarily remove conclusions from their supporting arguments and then complain that no supporting arguments were presented. How you expect to get away with it can be explained by the willing accomplices to your egregious behaviour, and multiple accounts you have activated for such a use. But even then truely the blame lies in yourself. Even as they play 'yes-men' to your fallacies, you should know better in and of yourself. Yet you do not, probably in desperation to be right in the face of such evidence against you.
[ Parent ]