The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 12-04-2002, 06:19 PM

davem (thanks for initiating this excellent thread), you have a strong argument.

It is possible to assert that a method (ie. The Ring, Technology etc.) are in themselves merely a manifestation of a mentality (Luciferian, Melkorian etc.) in which destructive ambition predominate.

The obvious counter-argument is that used by Boromir and later Denethor - that Sauron's weapons might be effectively turned against him, that the 'method' can be used for Good. However, Tolkien's narrative acts as a moral fable to the contrary - Evil in the end defeats itself, while Good triumphs (or survives) through a purity of means and motives. Evil, whether embodied in technology or magic, cannot be used for Good, and indeed corrupts even those who attempt it with good intentions. Magic is NOT used, or not comparably used, even by Gandalf, in the fight against the enemy.

The second, more logical, counter-argument is that technology, or industrialisation, cannot reasonably be seen to have a moral dimension that is an expression of its user. A gun, for example, is not Evil when fired by a murderer, yet Good when used by, say, The Lone Ranger (pretty good murderer himself, I think [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). Hopefully you get my point - the object, the technology is morally neutral. In my view this is a pretty strong refutation ...

This IS arguable, however, in the context that in opposition to the 'machine' is not so much the Aboriginal Dreamtime, but the more specific and cultural idealisation of rural England by Tolkien that I posited in my earlier post. If you accept that premise, then industrialisation clearly represents a force of social and environmental change, inevitably negative change given Tolkien's romantic and nostalgic worldview. Alternative ideologies might see industrialisation as the first step towards the redistribution of wealth, the creation of opportunity etc. etc., and in light of these differing interpretations the idea that technology itself is an Evil thought, or will, is still hard to assert in a logical way ... but in Tolkien's world, if one accepts his idealistic premise, it represents the antithesis of his rural "utopia".

Whichever words you use - that magic and technology are the "tools", the "manifestation", the "embodiment", of the Evil will that guides them, the connection cannot really be extrapolated to the objects themselves. Naturally the narrative symbols have moral significance, and where those symbols are magical or technological they are signposts to our identification of the meaning, or to the intended moral sympathies of the reader - but there is ambiguity here also.

What is an acceptable level of technology - when does it become the Evil will? Really, only when it initiaties or facilitates the social or psychological change to what is painted as a society (or culture) at balance with nature and in itself. The threshold in any such case is necessarily relative, especially as we have few real examples in history, but in Tolkien's case the moral, cultural and geographical topography is so comprehensive (and I would argue in line with my proposed interpretation) that the threshold is clearly crossed by the machinations of Sauron and Saruman.

Gwaihir, you make an intersting point, but I am not sure about your conception of machine, for the opposite reason [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Tolkien clearly intended to show that the idea of a community as an anthill where individuals were merely anonymous parts of a greater whole was more likely to result FROM technology than being a prequel to his own technological metaphor. Both fascism, communism and other ideologies have an idealised social model in which beings are gratified to serve the greater good, and operate in symbiotic harmony, and throughout history human nature has confounded such theories (often in quite depressing ways).

The theories in themselves, or the 'machine' as metaphor for some kind of 'sim city' version of Middle Earth, are at odds with Tolkien's actual narrative ... and his concept of art. In a societal machine where, as you put it, "a country, or a town or whatever, (is as) a 'machine' rather than a community, with every part existing to help the machine work. As long as the part performs that task, it is useful and deserves to exist", what would happen to the artists? Tolkien's very sweet story 'Leaf By Niggle', which I would very highly recommend indeed, gives us an insight into his sympathetic view of art as an aspect of personal, private transformation of immense value, rather than as a pinwheel in the social mechanism.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

12-04-2002, 06:19 PM	#8
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	davem (thanks for initiating this excellent thread), you have a strong argument. It is possible to assert that a method (ie. The Ring, Technology etc.) are in themselves merely a manifestation of a mentality (Luciferian, Melkorian etc.) in which destructive ambition predominate. The obvious counter-argument is that used by Boromir and later Denethor - that Sauron's weapons might be effectively turned against him, that the 'method' can be used for Good. However, Tolkien's narrative acts as a moral fable to the contrary - Evil in the end defeats itself, while Good triumphs (or survives) through a purity of means and motives. Evil, whether embodied in technology or magic, cannot be used for Good, and indeed corrupts even those who attempt it with good intentions. Magic is NOT used, or not comparably used, even by Gandalf, in the fight against the enemy. The second, more logical, counter-argument is that technology, or industrialisation, cannot reasonably be seen to have a moral dimension that is an expression of its user. A gun, for example, is not Evil when fired by a murderer, yet Good when used by, say, The Lone Ranger (pretty good murderer himself, I think [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). Hopefully you get my point - the object, the technology is morally neutral. In my view this is a pretty strong refutation ... This IS arguable, however, in the context that in opposition to the 'machine' is not so much the Aboriginal Dreamtime, but the more specific and cultural idealisation of rural England by Tolkien that I posited in my earlier post. If you accept that premise, then industrialisation clearly represents a force of social and environmental change, inevitably negative change given Tolkien's romantic and nostalgic worldview. Alternative ideologies might see industrialisation as the first step towards the redistribution of wealth, the creation of opportunity etc. etc., and in light of these differing interpretations the idea that technology itself is an Evil thought, or will, is still hard to assert in a logical way ... but in Tolkien's world, if one accepts his idealistic premise, it represents the antithesis of his rural "utopia". Whichever words you use - that magic and technology are the "tools", the "manifestation", the "embodiment", of the Evil will that guides them, the connection cannot really be extrapolated to the objects themselves. Naturally the narrative symbols have moral significance, and where those symbols are magical or technological they are signposts to our identification of the meaning, or to the intended moral sympathies of the reader - but there is ambiguity here also. What is an acceptable level of technology - when does it become the Evil will? Really, only when it initiaties or facilitates the social or psychological change to what is painted as a society (or culture) at balance with nature and in itself. The threshold in any such case is necessarily relative, especially as we have few real examples in history, but in Tolkien's case the moral, cultural and geographical topography is so comprehensive (and I would argue in line with my proposed interpretation) that the threshold is clearly crossed by the machinations of Sauron and Saruman. Gwaihir, you make an intersting point, but I am not sure about your conception of machine, for the opposite reason [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Tolkien clearly intended to show that the idea of a community as an anthill where individuals were merely anonymous parts of a greater whole was more likely to result FROM technology than being a prequel to his own technological metaphor. Both fascism, communism and other ideologies have an idealised social model in which beings are gratified to serve the greater good, and operate in symbiotic harmony, and throughout history human nature has confounded such theories (often in quite depressing ways). The theories in themselves, or the 'machine' as metaphor for some kind of 'sim city' version of Middle Earth, are at odds with Tolkien's actual narrative ... and his concept of art. In a societal machine where, as you put it, "a country, or a town or whatever, (is as) a 'machine' rather than a community, with every part existing to help the machine work. As long as the part performs that task, it is useful and deserves to exist", what would happen to the artists? Tolkien's very sweet story 'Leaf By Niggle', which I would very highly recommend indeed, gives us an insight into his sympathetic view of art as an aspect of personal, private transformation of immense value, rather than as a pinwheel in the social mechanism. Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Kalessin [ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]