Tolkien, Technology, and... War

[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 ). 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!

[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... [is] both nitwitted and malicious as a rule" (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

[symestreem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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?