While reading “Deus ex Machina” I realized that I have to agree with this whole concept of the machine having a pre-determined role. This machine can basically be anywhere, in a larger society, within a home setting, in a different time period, etc; the point here is that regardless of the location, the machine is made for a specific reason. Now, this machine could also really be anything, like the time machine presented in this reading or the water pipe as the loud speaker. However, in order for the machine to function there has to be someone or something receiving the action and vice versa (sending it). In Physical Machines what I found most interesting was the first synopsis given to the reader, which is that of the water pipe machine I have just mentioned. The role of the machine here is to cause an allusion of something that in reality is impossible. Yet the daughter feeds in to her mother’s allusion by becoming the trigger for the voice in the water pipe. This reminds me of a game “telephone” where one person says a phrase to someone and the information gets passed down a whole line of people and in the end the last person needs to repeat this phrase and for the most part it’s always distorted. This is what happens with this machine too, the daughter’s voice is distorted to that of the son’s and therefore, this is what the mother hears. ..or, could it be that the voice is never really distorted and the mother simply hears a male’s voice because that is what she wants? Moving on to Magical and Mixed Machines…the definition of the magic machine is as follows: “Magic machines often combine the properties of physical, social and linguistic machines…” (59). Therefore, the action of this machine (or the purpose) will be to deliver some type of physical, social or linguistic aspect to its user and in this case since flying carpets and drugs that cause spells, etc. are used, it may also be to its viewer (or the reader). Overall, it all leads to the universal plot machine which is created with a structure and purpose already in mind and for this reason, and probably the most important part of my blog, is that I agree that the writer should not have to resort to any type of machine to write, hence it would take away from the creativity of the work. Yet this makes me think of Barthes’ text “Death of the author” and how the author writes what he sees and knows based on society or whatever issue he/she is focusing on. Therefore, the machine is present regardless, right? So the plot was always planned out with a specific purpose, just like the machine. Wow, now I’m not too sure whether I can agree with Aristotle or not, funny the ideas that pop up while blogging…
On the one hand it seems like the machine's function is determined by the author but on the other hand it is the reader who, by interpreting the machine correctly, gives it this function. So you're right, it seems to work both ways. In the end, society has to agree on the function of the machine, otherwise it doesn't have any meaning.
ReplyDeleteI guess Barthes death of the author can't be applied on this text because actually the author uses the machine to try to close up a plot when s/he feel like there's no way out and the story has to end by any mean.So, it's him who"created" it and he's still present over there. and that's how it started in the Greek Theatre. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteJust on Barthes... I agree with Doaa that the author of this essay would probably not himself concur with Barthes, as he no doubt thinks of a machine as finely hewed by the author, but there's no reason why he *shouldn't* agree with him; there's no fundamental incompatibility.
ReplyDeleteBut let's be clear as to what Barthes was saying: it was *not* that "the author writes what he sees and knows based on society or whatever issue he/she is focusing on." This is still not getting rid of the author; at best it's replacing him (or her) with a surrogate. Recall the passage we read together in class last week.