Tolkien, Technology, and... War

[symestreem]

Tolkien's distrust of industry is well known (see Scouring of the Shire, Fellowship of the Ring if you don't know what I'm talking about). Reasons commonly given for this, and supported by the above chapter, include the corruption of nature. Is there another reason? Technology makes war easier and more impersonal; I imagine it's easier to drop a Tomahawk (or whatever missile) from an unmanned Predator than to cut someone's head off with a sword. In his books, Tolkien seems to portray war as a necessary evil (see ), but technology, as I said, makes war easier and more likely. Medieval monarchs had to think about raising an army and provisioning it. Now, weapons can kill an increasing number of people at one time, often without any risk to those who utliize them. Tolkien would have had a taste of this in WWI, with machine guns and poison gas. Technology also makes subjugation of one nation by another easier, if the other nation is a superpower. Both impersonal war and subjugation are themes Tolkien treats with dislike (although, curiously, he has no problems with Gondor's colonization of Harad after the War of the Ring); I believe all instances weapons of mass destruction in Middle-earth were utilized by the bad guys (ie dragons, siege, and the blasting fire of Orthanc), and it was the proud and corrupt Numenoreans who subjugated Middle-earth. Did Tolkien do this on purpose, or is easy war just another side effect of technology, like despolation of Nature?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There's a wonderful passage in The Hobbit that gives a comment about the Goblins and their love for technology and weapons. From it, we can assume that Tolkien connected technology with its negative destructive effects. Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted. They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones... Hammers, axes, swords, daggers, pickaxes, tongs, and also instruments of torture, they make very well, or get other people to make to their design.. It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them...

[mark12_30]

I think the Fell Beasts (and flying dragons as well) indicate Tolkien's dislike for Terror From The Air. Although the good side has eagles, the effects are quite different. I don't think he was fond of airplanes.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Also the idea of waste, such as the needless building of a bigger mill (at the expense of much of the natural landscape) in the Shire, when there was no need. This small event in the larger scheme took autonomy from the small and gave power to the outsider over the people themselves, thus echoing the rise of industry and the faceless conglomerates. There was also much senseless waste of human life in the Great War of attrition, when the generals' strategies were often, "throw as many men as possible at them and hope they run out before we do." The Germans attacks on Verdun were designed specifically to draw the hordes of French defenders to their doom in the defense of a national treasure. The Germans knew that the French would endure unthinkable human loss before they would give up Verdun. Senseless waves of young men dying in an impossible assault on Gallipoli before they realized how impossible it was...there was more human life lost through sheer waste in World War One than in any subsequent war, as far as my limited knowledge goes. I haven't read the "war-machines" version of the Fall of Gondolin, but I have read accounts of the Somme, and I imagine they would not be so different as one might think.

Cheers!
Lyta

[Kuruharan]

Technology makes war easier and more impersonal; I imagine it's easier to drop a Tomahawk (or whatever missile) from an unmanned Predator than to cut someone's head off with a sword. In his books, Tolkien seems to portray war as a necessary evil (see ), but technology, as I said, makes war easier and more likely.

While I agree with the general drift of your argument, at least as far as it pertains to Tolkein’s view of technology, I disagree with the idea that technology makes war any easier or more likely. Technology does not have anything to do with making human beings more or less violent. Our blood-spattered history seems to indicate that as a group we have a natural inclination to violence.

I also disagree that technology makes war essentially easier. It makes the process different, and it is certainly more destructive. However, it has its own kind of difficulty. I seriously doubt that you could get anybody who has actually had “their boots on the ground” to say that it was particularly easy for them. Even flying around in some planes can be just as physically demanding (in different ways) as running around hacking at somebody with a sword. Technology also creates layers of complexity and economic expense. In an economic sense I’d say that it is perhaps more burdensome for a modern nation to wage a real war than it was in the past.

One key difference between modern and (for lack of a better word) archaic warfare is its continual nature. Back in the good old days you’d set to for a day or so, or you’d settle in for a nice little siege. Once that was done then you’d likely have a little breather before continuing on to whatever was next. And then most everything stopped at the end of the campaigning season. Now, the war stops for no reason. It is fought under all conditions. In fact, it comes to resemble one long never-ending siege. This is on several levels more difficult and demanding than the good old days.

There was also much senseless waste of human life in the Great War of attrition, when the generals' strategies were often, "throw as many men as possible at them and hope they run out before we do." The Germans attacks on Verdun were designed specifically to draw the hordes of French defenders to their doom in the defense of a national treasure.

This type of thinking was not a peculiarity of the modern mind. It has always been some part of this kind of activity (and in spite of the stereotyping, it was not the only thing that the generals in World War I were thinking about).

Senseless waves of young men dying in an impossible assault on Gallipoli before they realized how impossible it was...

Not to be too picky (a sure sign that a picky comment is coming ;)) but Gallipoli is not the best example of this. If the thing had been better executed from the get go it might have turned out quite different. Even as it was the Turks were getting to the point of withdrawing. The project was an attempt at outside the box thinking by Churchill in an attempt to find a way around just throwing men at the enemy. He was trying to hit the enemy in their vulnerable underbelly. The commanders on the scene just sort of botched the thing from the beginning, and turned it into just throwing men at the enemy. If they had only managed the whole offensive as skillfully as they conducted the retreat…but anyway, I badly digress.

My essential point is that mere technology does not make humans more or less warlike. The problem has always lain with the human beings wielding the technology.

[Lhunardawen]

Originally posted by Kuruharan
I also disagree that technology makes war essentially easier. It makes the process different, and it is certainly more destructive. However, it has its own kind of difficulty.

I agree. I think the more appropriate thing to say is that technology in warfare causes more deaths in a shorter duration of time, as dropping a bomb can kill more people in a while than using swords and bows for a number of, say, hours (or probably even days). Efficiency, that would be the word.

[Son of Númenor]

I see what you are saying Lhunardawen & Kuruharan, but your definition of 'easier' does not seem to be in line with Symestreem's. Surely it is 'easier' to lob missiles from miles away than to engage the enemy in close-range combat, & easier to use nightvision to scan enemy terrain at night than your own naked eyes.

Edit: I did not mean to imply with the above that war has become easier in an economical or humane sense, but merely in the sense that it requires less men & women to risk their lives, requires less tactical 'gambling', & has become more efficient strategically (for the United States & it's allies, anyway :rolleyes: ). War is & has always been a horrible way to waste resources & lives.

But anyway, that does not seem the initial purpose of the thread.

Here are a few quotes from the Professor himself that shed some light on the issue at hand:Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter - leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing more triumphant: the Machines. As the servants of the Machines are becoming a privileged class, the Machines are going to be enormously powerful. What's their next move? (Letters, 196)Worthy of Morpheus himself. Unlike art which is content to create a new secondary world in the mind, it attempts to actualize desire, and so to create power in this World; and that cannot really be done with any real satisfaction. Labour-saving machinery only creates endless and worse labour. (Letters, 75) How I wish the 'infernal combustion' engine had never been invented. Or (more difficult still since humanity and engineers in special are both nitwitted and malicious as a rule) that it could have been put to rational uses - if any... (Letters, 64)

Unfortunately I have no time to write my own thoughts on the subject, but I will be sure to do so later.

[Kuruharan]

Surely it is 'easier' to lob missiles from miles away than to engage the enemy in close-range combat, & easier to use nightvision to scan enemy terrain at night than your own naked eyes.

Not necessarily. The difficulty lies in a different area, I am specifically thinking of the development and maintenance of such weaponry. I have an uncle in that line of work and it is quite hard in its own way, and expeeeensive!!!!!

Certainly it is easier to simply push a button. It is the process to get you to the point of pushing a button that can be difficult. And even modern warfare consists of much more than just sitting back and pushing buttons. It is hard, nasty, and quite dangerous work for your average infantryman, just as it has always been.

My thinking in this area is rather in line with the quotation you provided from Tolkien:

Labour-saving machinery only creates endless and worse labour. (Letters, 75)

[Lhunardawen]

Aside from the development and maintenance of modern weaponry, I think another difficulty is the need for complex strategems in using such. Surely it is also necessary in using "ancient" weapons, but with technology, it has to be given a lot more thought.

[The Saucepan Man]

Thank you Son of Númenor for supplying those quotes from the Letters. They, and others like them, were the ones that I was immediately reminded of when I first saw this thread. There are also a number of references to his dislike of Terror from the Air, which Helen mentioned. Indeed, in letters written during WW2 to his son Christopher, who was stationed with the RAF in South Africa at the time, Tolkien expressed his sadness that Christopher should be flying military aircraft. He likened the situation to a Hobbit riding a Fell Beast, I believe. When I read this, I thought how distressing it must have been for Christopher to read of his father’s intense dislike of the very things that he was flying in the service of his country. But, since Christopher knew his father as closely as anyone, I suppose that he must have understood.

Although Tolkien expresses in his Letters many sentiments with which I can agree, his dislike of modern technology is one area where I find his views significantly at variance with my own. I can understand his hatred of modern warfare (particularly given his experiences in WW1, which I am sure that I could never even begin to appreciate fully) but, as Kuruharan intimated, it is people, not machines, that kill people. And, as one who greatly appreciates the beauty of my own country, I can understand his sense that the ugliness of modern factories and the like were blighting the land (although very little of rural England, including areas such as that on which the Shire is based, represents its natural state). And I can also (acutely) identify with his thoughts on technological advancements speeding up the pace of life to an unpleasant (and often dangerously stressful) degree.

But he seems to take no account of the benefits that advancements in technology can bring, particularly in terms of medical advancements, standards of living and information availability. This issue came up in a recent PM discussion with Numenorean, who wondered what Tolkien would have made of the information age and, in particular, the internet. I said that I thought that, as someone who valued information (or at least the communication of thoughts and ideas), he might have recognised the value of the internet. Then again, the internet can be put to good and bad use, just like the “infernal combustion engine” which he lambastes in his Letters.

One final thought. It seems odd to me that someone should be content with a certain level of technology, yet find any advancement beyond that unpleasant. I suppose it depends upon what one is used to. My mother never did get round to learning how to operate a video recorder! :D

[Son of Númenor]

You're right Saucepan Man, Tolkien's quarrel with technological advancement was somewhat narrow-minded. Surely all of us can appreciate the wonderful advancements that have been made in medicine in the last half-century, which has contributed to higher standards of living across the world & longer average lifespans than could ever have been conceived of only a few hundred years ago.

While we all appreciate & take for granted the great availability of information thanks to the Internet, I don't know that Professor Tolkien would have looked happily upon the relative ease by which each of us can now access knowledge on almost any subject from anywhere in the international community. His claim that "humanity... both nitwitted and malicious as a rule" ([I]Letters, 64), seems to indicate a feeling of his that knowledge is a dangerous tool in the hands of the wrong people, or even, to an extent, in the hands of the general public. He would probably berate those who make essays on nuclear power & websites devoted to white supremacy so readily available to anyone who seeks them (or should happen upon them). I, for one, am a firm advocate of the advantages of the Internet as a resource for learning & sharing views & ideas, but would not blame Tolkien for criticizing the danger inherent in such a resource.

Like Saucepan, I cannot imagine the profound effect that World War I had on J.R.R. Tolkien, & can only believe that World War II was one of the most painful experiences of Tolkien's life, seeing all the same mistakes being made over again & yet another massive war engulfing the world in the lifetime of millions of those who remembered the Great War, the supposed War to End All Wars. The Second World War, perhaps, contributed almost as much as World War I to Tolkien's skepticism of technology & his cynicism & pessimism about the human race. Given his experiences, it is hard to blame him.

[Esgallhugwen]

There are so many different levels and types of technology, and things can become quite complicated when trying to express your views. Such as disliking one form of technology but supporting another.

For instance I truly find the medical aspect of our technology to be astounding, helping people with diseases and complications, trying to find cures for those incurable diseases. But then I get to thinking (and I know this is an awefully cruel thing to think or say) but if these people with these illnesses are allowed to live and possibly reproduce passing those traits on to their offspring; what then?

More and more people will be faced with it, that in my opinion is why the human race is weakening, because we are defying nature, we're trying to live and prolong life for those we should be trying to put to rest easily, some of the treatments they have cause much undesired pain. Of course its horribly easy for me to say that, but only because I myself am not afflicted with any condition, and have none in my family that suffer as well.

I have no doubt that my point of view would quickly change if some mischance arose, I don't want to die and I don't want any of my family to die, though death is eventually inevitable, but I'll not worry about that until the time comes. I'm not some sort of Doomsday person I just feel we're toying with things we shouldn't be playing with. (like cloning but that a whole other thing unrelated to this topic issue).

Now on the subject of war, my definition for easier in this case is that it is easier to use the threat of nuclear war and other such devices to get what you want. Everyone knows the desolation that one of those abominations can bring ever since the United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of course that was in WW2.

But ultimately the situation varies little (well except for minor details). That also brings up another point, what with the continueing impersonality of war, where is the honour in that? Forgive me for being seriously old- fashioned but we never really face our enemy eye to eye anymore. To use the stereotypical cliche 'its just a flick of a switch and a push of a button', or at least the threat to do so by another nation against another nation.

Yes, I can fully understand there is a whole new way of dealing in and with war what with all of our fabulous mechanizations. We've lost the honour of being able to face down our enemies hand to hand, now we just shoot them or they shoot us and its done with; which leads to my final biased opinion...

It is easier to use a gun than a sword, even a child could use a gun (My memory fails me as to which countries have used gun bearing children in war), but to use a sword would take much more skill and discipline. Of course it isn't really about skill and discipline anymore its about who can kill who the fastest.

That to me is why Tolkien so hated war. Well thats my opinion, I'm sure not all of you will agree but that is fine, everyone is entitled to his or her view and I respect that, I just hope that you will respect my view as well; I'm sure we all agree that no matter the circumstances war is above all not a glorious thing :)

[Imladris]

Esgallhugwen, a child can also use a sword, as well (I am using a movie called The Last Samurai for example, as well as the training of children for battle in the Middle-ages).

First of all, there is hand to hand to fighting in modern warfare still. We still need troops made of men, etc and they still fight face to face. Modern warfare has made it easier to kill people, but also it's not as if we can just flick a switch. We have to seriously think about it before we drop an atomic bomb on a nation. Wiping out an entire nation will have its effects, and we have to think long and hard about before we do that.

But, according to the quotes that Son of Númenor put on his post, Tolkien laments the huge loss of human life in war that is made so much easier now. He does not lament the lack of honour in war because there can still be honour even in modern day warfare. Even in World War II there was honour and I'm sure that there is still honour in war or else the government would quit giving out their medals and purple hearts.

On a semi off topic obervation, I do not believe that Tolkien realized the favour that modern warfare gives us. If a nation knows that another nation has the power to wipe out an entire nation, it will think long and hard before it precipates a huge war.

[Mister Underhill]

Strangely enough, modern technology and the advent of instantaneous global communication has bred a new spin on modern warfare, one in which propaganda and psychological objectives are as valuable or even more valuable than conventional tactical and strategic objectives. Operations are conducted not to achieve any particular tactical objective, but only for their P.R. value.

I daresay that, considering his dislike even of the telephone, Tolkien would have recoiled from computers and the internet.

Technology gets a pasting in "On Fairy-Stories" as well, with special scorn reserved for the sheer aesthetic ugliness of mass-production.

He also comments on the transience of technological objects. As science races ahead with new discoveries and new gadgets, today's cutting edge tech is, tomorrow, "pitiably obsolete and shabby".

He seems to have been much more interested in permanent, primary, fundamental things like trees, and the ocean, and lightning. "How real," he says with much irony, "how startlingly alive is a factory chimney compared with an elm-tree: poor obsolete thing, insubstantial dream of an escapist!"

In this I sympathize, though as Sauce notes we are all, to an extent, the products of our age. I'd hate to give up my XBOX. ;)

[symestreem]

While I agree with the general drift of your argument, at least as far as it pertains to Tolkein’s view of technology, I disagree with the idea that technology makes war any easier or more likely. Technology does not have anything to do with making human beings more or less violent. Our blood-spattered history seems to indicate that as a group we have a natural inclination to violence.

Yes... I was referring to the 'ethics' of war'. Sitting in an air-conditioned office, pressing a button and hearing a computerized voice say 'Target destroyed' will give you a lot fewer nightmares than running a young boy through with a sword. Technology has the frightening potential to isolate you from the consequences of your actions, and that is something we never see in Tolkien's books. People always seem to pay the price or reap the rewards.

[Kuruharan]

Sitting in an air-conditioned office, pressing a button and hearing a computerized voice say 'Target destroyed' will give you a lot fewer nightmares than running a young boy through with a sword.

You are right that modern technology can gain physical distance, for some, from the things they do in war. However, they still know what they are doing, and at some point they are likely to see some evidence of their handiwork.

I’m not sure that it really makes a whole lot of difference because people have always done things like this. I don’t believe that technology changes humanity from being what it essentially is.

[Esgallhugwen]

Imladris, I never said a child was incapable of using a sword I just said its possible a gun would be easier to use and easier to kill someone with. It would also take less training time (in my opinion) you tell the kid to pull the trigger at so and so and BANG! its over with. I learned to use a gun in less then 5 minutes, whereas a sword would probably take longer to master, the least amount of time would be a couple of hours or a couple of days just to get the basics.

I myself have not learned to weild a sword (yet) so my opinion might be slightly naive.

I realize that contemplating about destroying a nation is not something you can just decide over night, however it seems to me that the threat is used more openly, warning other nations that are totally not involved that if they decide to go through with dropping the bomb that they too could be destroyed as a result.

So I suppose in reality that I strongly agree with Tolkien about how these new technologies allow us to destroy ourselves faster than ever imagined before in our most terrible nightmares.

Imladris you are right about how there can still be honour, I have mis-communicated, again. I used honour in the wrong context, or perhaps I was thinking of a different kind of honour.

Yes, of course theres always honour among comrades in arms, but I was refering to opposing sides, they just seem to want to blow up one another in hate not just for their countries honour to protect their country but to take ove another nation in hateful defiance.

[Lhunardawen]

Originally posted by Kuruharan
You are right that modern technology can gain physical distance, for some, from the things they do in war. However, they still know what they are doing, and at some point they are likely to see some evidence of their handiwork.

As some people might perceive the pictures of the bombing of a certain place to be more horrible than, for example, the Helm's Deep scene from TTT (pretending it happened in real life). Aside from the fact that you have seen something blown up to smithereens, it hurts to know that there are actual people affected. But some people tend to be insensitive, just as long as they get what they want. Tolkien might as well be angered with these people more than with technology itself.

[Esgallhugwen]

Aside from the fact that you have seen something blown up to smithereens, it hurts to know that there are actual people affected. But some people tend to be insensitive, just as long as they get what they want. Tolkien might as well be angered with these people more than with technology itself.

I totally agree with you there Lhunardawen. The technology we create to help and save has the potential to end our very existance all because of peoples greed. The people who use these machines to destroy are more at fault then the machines themselves, afterall they have no brains (the machines, well sometimes humans too) and therefore cannot have a say in how they are used for or against human kind.

If memory serves me correctly, and sometimes it doesn't, was it not Einstein or some other great scientist who discovered that we could harness the power of the atom? He intended it only to be used for the purpose of good, but when he found out what other intentions people would use it for, he stopped his research. To bad it didn't stop the atrocity from being made.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I don't think Tolkien was against all science and technology....only the abuses. But he did see "the Enemy" as the "Lord of Magic and Machines", who used magia for his own power. It was this potential for abuse that concerned JRRT. Having lived in the 20th century, he had seen this happen too many times. Yet it is possible to find postive references to technology in the Legendarium (as well as their negative counterparts), if you search closely. Let me mention just a few.

First, there is a brief but interesting comment in the Letters that suggests Tolkien drew a distinction between technological advancement per se, and the use of that technology for destructive purposes. This comment occurs in draft Letter 155, where Tolkien comments on the changes introduced into the Shire during the Wars of the Ring:

It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more
efficient mills; but not to Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.

To me, this draws a clear line between the technology itself and the way it is employed The critical difference is the element of coercion that Tolkien felt often followed on the heels of technology, especially technology that could be used for military purposes.

Tolkien displays a similar ambivalence in regard to the Noldor. He notes they were "always on the side of 'science and technology' as we should call it." Sometimes this had positive results. It is the Noldor, probably Feanor, who crafted the Palantiri. For many years, these were routinely used in helping the kings of Arnor and Gondor maintain the communications they needed to keep their realms together for as long as they did. No one, least of all Tolkien, condemned this. It was only when one of these crystal globes fell into Sauron's hands that their use became problematic, and they were abused. (On this, see UT).

Still, there is a less pleasant side of the Noldor's technology. These were the same Elves who cooperated with Sauron in forging the Rings of Power, certainly the most powerful 'technology' in Middle-earth. It was Sauron who duped and betrayed them into using their powerful skills to create something extremely destructive, which was ultimately against their own self-interest, and the self-interest of all the free peoples of Middle-earth.

Tolkien showed a similar ambivalence in dealing with the dwarves' love of mining. Mining is technology and a craft that can be used for both war and peace. There are many instances where the dwarves' greed for mithril and other fine metals led to misery. The one that immediately comes to mind is when they dug too deep in Moria and wakened evil things that would have been better left alone.

Yet there is another passage that leaves us with a totally different feeling: Gimli's rapturous description of the Caves at Helm's Deep.

No Dwarf could be unmoved by such loveliness. None of Durin's race would mine those caves for stones or ore, not if diamonds and gold could be got there....We would tend these glades of flowering stone, not quarry them.

It was presumably from these caves that the mithril came to rebuild the gates of Gondor, yet another positive use of technology. This last quote also suggests a tie-in to another theme in LotR that Tolkien stressed: that of guardianship of the Earth. Technology could be destructive for two reasons: the element of coercion, and the destruction of Arda's natural beauty. Technology without proper guardianship was an unalloyed evil.

It's no coincidence that parts of Mordor looked like industrial wasteland. In Frodo's words, "earth and air and water all seem accursed". Near Mount Doom, the Hobbits found "a huge mass of ash and slag and burned stone" where "the air was full of fumes; breathing was painful and difficult." Sound familiar anyone?

Would Tolkien have hated the computer? Given his ambivalent record, I'm not so sure. At one point he had a television so he could watch certain sports matches. He learned to drive a car, but gave it up, partially because he saw the way the influx of roads "destroyed" the British countryside. But he does depict a train with affection in one of his minor works. My guess is that he would not have hated the computer but might have been leery about such abuses as the spread of trash (the invasion of pornography and other stupidity into our homes) or the loss of privacy that sometimes results.

[The Saucepan Man]

I take your point, Child, but Tolkien also wrote:


Of course, I suppose that, subject to the permission of God, the whole human race (as each individual) is free not to rise again but to go on to perdition and carry out the Fall to its bitter bottom (as each individual can singulariter). And at certain periods, the present is notably one, that seems not only a likely event but imminent. Still I think that there will be a 'millenium', the prophesised thousand-year rule of Saints, i.e. those who have for all their imperfections never bowed heart and will to the world or the evil spirit (in modern but not universal terms: mechanism, 'scientific' materialism, Socialism in either of its factions now at war). (Letter 96)

and (to expand on a quote given earlier by Son of Númenor):


There is the tragedy and despair of all machinery laid bare. Unlike art which is content to create a new secondary world in the mind, it attempts to actualize desire, and so create power in this World; and that cannot really be done with any real satisfaction. Labour-saving machinery only creates endless and worse labour. And in addition to this fundamental disbility of a creature, is added the Fall, which makes our devices not only fail of their desire but turn to new and horrible evil. (Letter 75)There does seem to a slight inconsistency between these quotes. The first suggests that he regarded mechanism as a manifestation of 'the evil spirit' in itself. The second suggests that, while not evil in itself, machinery would, as an inevitable consequence of the Fall of Man, be turned to evil (because it actualises the desire for power, which is itself an evil purpose). Either way, even though he might have acknowledged that mechanism did have its beneficial side, he appears to have thought that it would inevitably be turned to evil and that this, in itself, was a reason to regard it negatively.

The paradox I see here is that Ted Sandyman's mill (before 'corrupted' by Saruman) is a mechanism of sorts. As are the bow which Legolas uses and the cart in which Gandalf arrives in Hobbiton. They are all products of a certain level of technology, and yet Tolkien is happy to accept them as having the potential to be used both for good and for evil, without the latter being an inevitable consequence. It seems that it is only once technology develops beyond that stage that he sees the evil use as being inevitable. That, to me, is illogical. 'Fallen Man' is no less (and no more) capable of using the 'infernal combustion engine' for good than he is the horse and cart.

It seems to me that the 'embalming' nature of the Elves has its roots in Tolkien's dislike of technological advancement. Just as Tolkien himself was, the Elves are resisting change in Middle-earth, viewing the status quo as preferable by far. Yet I see this quality of Elvishness as extremely unnatural, as it seeks to work against the cycle of nature, which welcomes change and development by clearing away the old to make way for the new. Indeed, Tolkien himself states on a number of occasions that this desire to 'preserve' was one of the Elves' great failings. And, as you point out Child, the Elves' use of 'technology', in the form of the Rings of Power, to further this preservation of Middle-earth in their preferred state has dire consequences. Does this perhaps represent a recognition by Tolkien that his own resistance to change and development (in technological terms), however instinctively right it seemed to him, was in fact a flawed aspect of his own beliefs?

[Bombadil]

Great points and discussion by all, and in particular the latter: Sauce and Child. My interpretation of "Good technology," though, is one of the technology itself naught but a mere response to original, and ultimately evil technology.

It was presumably from these caves that the mithril came to rebuild the gates of Gondor, yet another positive use of technology.

You are correct Child, but if you were to go back to the roots of that situation - The door of Mithril was made to replace the one previously breached by the battering ram of Sauron's Army (for the first and only time, mind you). Grond was the evil technology that brought about the need for a mithril door. Such is the theory of militarization, and a more modern example being the cold war. With this type of rise in technology, all that can result form it is mass death and eventual self-destruction.

And to expand on this point:

But he seems to take no account of the benefits that advancements in technology can bring, particularly in terms of medical advancements, standards of living and information availability.

This was stated by the saucepan man. And to connect my point with that - There would be no need for medical advances if it weren't for the advance of the diseases.

BUt then there's the case for technology being able to do things like heal a bullet wound in a leg rather than have to amputate it, or cure legal blindess. These situations contradict my point somewhat (unless you want to bring up the fact that amputation from bullet wounds is caused by the technology of bullets, and modern factors can lead to loss of vision - an example being mass consumption of meat products leading to macular degeneration) Ahhh! im straying off point a little.

Anyways, To go back to some of the very first wars of Arda, you see that an enormous war- a war to mark an age- involves and was instigated by mere jewels. (And let me say i state "mere" lightly - they were the silmarils after all) But without the silmarils, there would be no war with Melkor. It was inevitable that a confrontation would elapse, but it was started due to the crafts of Feanor.

But perhaps in the end, mother nature towers over technology. This being the case in the Ent rebellion on Saruman, but perhaps to relate this to modern living one could see nature fighting back. As we pollute the air, she (Mother nature of course :cool: ) slowly fuses her polar ice caps. As we over-populate, and spread through this earth, so does her disease. Not disease brought upon by humans, but spread. I.E. the HIV virus, believed to have started in monkeys, is spread due to our ability to travel quickly and efficiently. And as we grow to depend on this technology, she turns her back on us - to the point where human survival is critically dependent to technology.

As we persist to go against laws of nature, and lead to ideas like cloning, and continue to add to the world's population, perhaps technology will ultimately balance things out. The more this planet is inhabited by human beings, the more deadly weaponry will become, the more deadly diseases will become, and in time ttechnology may possibly balance itself out. I apologize for straying off topic form Tolkien's views to my own, but I'm done.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Saucepan Man says: 'Fallen Man' is no less (and no more) capable of using the 'infernal combustion engine' for good than he is the horse and cart. While that is true, I would like to add a negative aspect that Tolkien also mentions in connection with Middle-earth technological advance - environmental pollution. The end products left over from a horse and cart are biodegradable, to use a modern word. Though it is of course possible to use modern technology for good purposes, the pollution remains. The exhaust of an ambulance (fired by an internal combustion engine) is no less harmful than that of a robber's getaway car...

[mark12_30]

Philip Gibbs was a WW1 correspondent who wrote several books after the war containing material that had been censored during the war. He wrote extensively about the Somme which is of course where Tolkien fought.

During the Somme (indeed during much of the war) the tactics were appallingly simple: (1) Extensive artillery shelling first (during which time the men sat huddled in their trenches dreading the next explosion; some went insane-- "shell shock" ) and then (2) bravely charging "over the top"-- squadron after squadron of men crossing no-mans-land (armed with a rifle each) running boldly into machine-gun fire.

The artillery shelling turned everything to mud. Body parts were everywhere. It wasn't safe to leave your trench to bury them.

Charging "over the top" and into machine gun fire was essentially suicide. Wave after wave of good, honest men were sent "over the top". For years. For little or no gain. Just death.

One of Gibb's main points was that the commanders simply kept sending men "over the top" in the name of "courage" without grappling with the fact that the casualty rate averaged 80% to 90% and sometimes 100%. These are completely unacceptable casualty rates yet the commanders kept sending the men "over the top", month after bloody month, year after bloody year.

So what Tolkien saw during his wartime was apallingly simple: Men sitting in muddy, body-parts-filled trenches waiting to be shelled to bits and slowly (or quickly) going insane; and men climbing out of their muddy, body-parts-filled trenches to run across the body-parts-filled mud of no-mans-land straight into machine gun fire and get mowed down.

What was the name of the certain death that the men faced when they went "over the top"? The "Machine"-gun.

If he hadn't hated "Machines" before the war already, I see why he hated them afterward.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

A very interesting and pertinent thread symestreem.

I think that the current discussion about “good and bad” technology is perhaps a bit misleading, insofar as it is trying to approach a subtle and complex aspect of Tolkien’s world (the status, use, view, role of technology) through the simplicity of binary terms (good vs. bad, right vs. wrong). I have no doubt that there are in LotR “good and bad” uses of technology, but I think that there might be another way to approach this. To quote (now for the third time in this thread – first by Son of Númenor and then by Saucepan Man) an important passage from the Letters:

There is the tragedy and despair of all machinery laid bare. Unlike art which is content to create a new secondary world in the mind, it attempts to actualize desire, and so create power in this World; and that cannot really be done with any real satisfaction. Labour-saving machinery only creates endless and worse labour. And in addition to this fundamental disability of a creature, is added the Fall, which makes our devices not only fail of their desire but turn to new and horrible evil. (Letter 75)

I am quite conscious that Tolkien himself is approaching technology here in terms of its “evil” so I’m not trying to eject that idea from the discussion. What I do want to point out is that he opposes to technology not “good” technology, but art. As has been pointed out in this thread, the forces of good in Middle-Earth depend upon technological advance as much as do the forces of evil, and yet somehow these instances of engineering or fabrication are somehow OK. I think that this is because the “good” instances of technology are undertaken not in the spirit of domination and manipulation, but for creation and co-operation.

The best three examples I can think of for this form of art, and their technological counterparts are: Caras Galadhon and Barad Dûr; the Old Mill and the New Mill; the Three Rings and the One Ring.

Caras Galadhon is a marvel of engineering – to construct an entire city in the treetops is beyond even our own 21st century technology. And yet is stands in stark contrast to the tower of steel and stone that is Barad Dûr, which is something very much in the realm of possibility now. The difference is that the city of Galadriel is built in cooperation with the natural surrounding – even in homage to it. The city creates a place or space for the people to live in and amongst their natural setting without asserting dominance or control of that setting.

The Old Mill, we are told, was entirely sufficient to the needs of the hobbits. It ground enough wheat to meet the requirements of the Halflings and existed in harmony with the natural surrounding. It added to the lives of those who used it and allowed the basic function of life to go forward. Like the flet building technology of the Elves, it allowed the hobbits to live and thrive, to make a space for themselves, in their natural surroundings. All of the arts of the hobbits do so: agrarian, brewing, etc. The hobbit hole is another great example of this: a house that is literally in the earth, not towering over and dominating it.

And the Rings. The Three were made to preserve and enhance what already was there; like art, they were an attempt at creation and co-operation with the natural world. The One, as we all know, is about domination and control.

To paraphrase Hamlet, the purpose of art is to hold a mirror up to nature; the purpose of technology, according to Tolkien, is to dominate nature.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I think Mark 12_30 is on the right trail. The only way to understand Tolkien's feelings about the machine is to look at him in the context of his own historical time.

Helen's comments on WWI are very apt. I would add just one other point. There was also the element of propaganda, which was rampant on both sides during the Great War. As the young men signed up for duty, they were barraged with a host of patriotic posters and newspaper stories. These were blissful representations of a war that did not exist: posters that showed sports clubs enlisting en masse as if the war was just a continuation of their usual Sunday afternoon soccer matches and comradrie; pictures of pretty maidens in fancy frocks serving tea to the young men as they departed on the train; cigarette commercials where the soldiers blissfully relax in the trenches and even stand up in the middle of the battle field to take a smoke.

The problem is that none of this bore any relation to reality. In Tolkien's mind, the machine and its use became linked with deception. For he and his friends had surely been deceived when they went off to fight the War of the Machine. This is the same connection we see in the Lord of the Rings where those with power over machines were inherently duplicitous, smooth talkers who loved machines, people who could not be trusted. Saruman clearly falls into this category.

Secondly, I think you have to see Tolkien's environmental yearnings in the context of his time. I am not saying today is perfect. Far from it ! We can still see evidence of greed and indifference and their sad impact on our world. In some parts of the globe, the bleak necessity to survive channells folk into the destruction and neglect of the environment. Yet there is one critical difference between now and then. There are many environmental groups around who do speak out and companies must make some attempt to comply with government regulations or else they run the risk of lawsuits. It's even possible to go to college and study ecology or environmental sciences.

Very little of that existed at the time Tolkien was writing. I'm sure he felt like a lonely voice crying in the wilderness. This probably accounted for some of his natural stridency in this area. Frankly, I felt the same way in the 60s (and that was long after JRRT's writing), and part of that is still with me. For example, I can remember when Rachel Carson's Silent Spring first came out in 1961-- people were absolutely shocked to hear what she had to say about pesticides and how they ran inside our very bones and the lands and waters of the Earth. In fact, the main theme in Tolkien that the sixties college students responded to was his championship of the environment. Students felt that he was one of a very few authors who understood how they felt. (The religious themes, on the other hand, were not regarded as so central as they are today.)

My guess is that, given this lack of ecological awareness in the general society, an awareness that we take for granted today , Tolkien did not regard his opposition to the machine as "looking backward" or the sin that the Elves were prone to. He regarded it as taking a strong and rebellious stand against the forces of evil, the forces of indifference that surrounded him everywhere. I understand why he could make a reference to "bombing" factories and power plants (not in seriousness, of course). When you believe something is right yet no one pays the slightest attention, and it seems as if there is no hope to change things by acting through the system, you begin to take on an increasingly belligerent stance! :eek: I am sure this accounts for a good deal of his impatience. Intellectually, he was aware that not all "machines" are evil, but he had seen too much abuse and it affected how he felt.

Just take a look at what actually happened in the time that Tolkien lived. In the first fifty years of the 20th century, there was more land in England stripped of trees than had occurred in the previous four centuries. By the time Tolkien died, just a little more than 10% of the countryside was still forested, and most of that was with non-native conifers. (You'll notice that JRRT never mentions conifers among his favorite trees!) With the advent of the motor car, he saw habitat after habitat destroyed by the advent of 'super' roads. Yes, there was certainly economic reasons why all this happened, but it was a tremendous price to pay.

We all know about hobbits and mushrooms. Yet the sad truth is that ,during Tolkien's life, wild mushrooms were dying out all across Europe, a process that has continued after his death. Seventy species of fungi are now extinct in Europe and another 600 have become "uncommon", including the wood blewitts, giant chanterelle, and penny-buns or cep. Cep once grew all over England; now they can only be found in very remote places. Why is this happening? The cause is habitat loss, combined with acidification from increased levels of nitrogen and sulphur in the air, and heavy metals in the soil. No wonder the "machine" sometimes made Tolkien angry, and he displayed an ambivalent attitude in his writing.

(Child gets down from her soapbox.... ;) )

[Esgallhugwen]

Wow :eek: Fordim Hedgethistle and Child. Excellent points I couldn't agree with you more. We're all products of our environment. Its a shame we take so many things for granted today that never exsisted when Tolkien was around. Especially all the environmental groups one could join today, they do a lot when greedy coniving companies don't hinder them. :mad:

Thats all I really have to say. :)

[Child of the 7th Age]

Thanks, Esgallhugwen!

Fordim -

We double posted. Your examples of art and their technological counterparts are intriguing. I think you are onto something. The terminology may be getting in our way. Some of what we now call machines may actually fall into Tolkien's category of Art (admittedly the smaller share), while other fabrications are examples of "The Machine" that he detested.

I would add that a legitimate work of art may be captured by someone seeking power and coopted to less honorable purposes. This was the case with the Palantiri crafted by the Elves. Given to the Elf-friends as they departed Numenor, the Kings of Gondor and Arnor relied upon these wonderful objects, until they were stolen and abused by Sauruman and Sauron. The nature of these objects did not change but the use to which they were put certainly did.

As you rightfully suggest, each of the fabrications that merit the designation of "art" respect their natural setting without asserting dominance or control over it. But this mistrust of The Machine clearly stems back to Tolkien's beliefs as a Christian. Your own quote concerning the complications from the Fall also allude to that. It was not only the impact on the environment that concerned JRRT, but the impact that the machine had on the soul of those who wielded them.

Tolkien's views on "The Machine" were conditioned by his perspective that history was nothing more than a long defeat, punctuated by temporary victories. In the author's eyes, perhaps, an Elven city in the trees or the Shire's Old Mill were small and temporary victories of Art. Sadly however, both of these examples of goodness were swept away from our own world, since the Elves departed for the West and the Hobbits now hide from Big Folk. Similarly, at the end of the story, only one working Palantir remains in Middle-earth; the others have been taken to the West, lost, or rendered useless.

Tolkien believed that created beings, fallen as they were, are prone to abuse even the good things in life, and that includes Art. Within Arda, most evil begins with good intentions. This is certainly the case with many scientific advancements. In JRRT's view, the act of turning away from true Art to "The Machine" was just one more instance of people refusing to submit to the limitations that Nature or the will of the Creator imposed on them. In this sense, the damage to the soul of the person wielding the Machine was just as pertinent as damage to the outward environment.

Tolkien used the term "Machine" in an extended sense to signify the attempt to 'actualize' our desires by coercing the world and other's wills into satisfying them. The Ring, of course, was the ultimate coercion machine. "Coercion" was intrinsic to The Machine, yet totally absent from Art.

There is a related discussion of magia and goeteia (magic performed by the invocation of spirits) in Letter 155 that pertains to this. Here, it is magia that is equated with Art or Machine; it is neutral in itself, but capable of going in either direction according to the use to which it is put:

Neither is ( i.e., magia or goeteia) good or bad per se, but only by motive or purpose or use. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjegate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficient purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive....The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for "machinery"--with destructive and evil effects--because "magicians" who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so).

This at least implies that the purpose to which magia is put determines whether the fabrication is Art or Machine, as well as the degree to which it respects the natural setting, and stands in accord with Eru's plan. These three are irrevocably linked.

[davem]

Nothing really to add to Child & Fordim's posts, except that there was a video out a few years back:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004CTCD/qid=1084869375/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_0_2/202-5551119-6814227

Unfortunately its not generally available, but I think you can still get it from the Tolkien Society.

There are some long interviews with Christopher, John & Priscilla Tolkien, as well as Shippey & Flieger. Part of the interview with Christopher goes into this issue of the machine, & Tolkien's understanding of it, & his distinction between the man made & the machine.