From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: Technology and Morality in LOTR
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 08:49:44 GMT

In article <673@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:

>	  I argue elsewhere that the *purpose* behind the use of one or
>another method is the critical factor for Tolkien in evaluating the use of
>technology.  (The key exception, of course, is the One Ring, which of its
>created nature cannot be used for good, at least not for very long.)  I think
>this position is supported by Galadriel's comments on the word "magic", when
>she expresses some confusion/criticism regarding the way mortals use the word.
>She can't understand how the same word could apply both to her mirror, and to
>the evil devices of the Enemy.  Clearly, she doesn't think in terms of tools,
>but of *acts*.  She doesn't classify things as "this is magical, this is
>mechanical, this is organic", but rather by the goals and motivations of
>the agent.

	In my last posting, I said that I thought you brought up the passage
about Gimli and the Glittering Caves in this posting as well.  Looks like I
was wrong!!  :-)   

	But, while I'm here. . .  you raise some interesting and debatable
points.

	First is the question of Galadriel and her confusion at mortals' use
of the word magic.  I don't think one can really say that Galadriel thinks
about magic or technology in terms of either acts or tools.  Perhaps Sam
and Frodo expressed it best on the page before.  Sam observes that "[i]f 
there's any magic about, it's right down deep, where I can't lay my hands
on it, in a manner of speaking."  Frodo responds, "You can see it and feel
it everywhere."  Sam replies, "Well, you can't see nobody working it.  No
fireworks like poor old Gandalf use to show."  Elvish "magic," at least in
its essence, lies neither in tools nor acts, but is simply a quality of being.
In this sense, I think we can distinguish between Elven magic (i.e. Lothlorien
as a whole) and Elven craft (the Rings, the palantiri, the Silmarils), 
although the boundary lines might be a bit fuzzy.  


	What I think is intriguing is your bringing up of the categories
of "mechanical" and "organic" and then rejecting them.  It seems to me that 
the distinction of organic/mechanical might actually be a very telling way of 
looking at "technology" in LOTR.  The examples that leap to mind most quickly
are the description of the Dwarven halls in the Lonely Mountain and in 
Moria.  Gloin tells Frodo that the arches under the Mountain are "carved
like trees."  One of the halls of Moria is lined with pillars "carved like
boles of mighty trees whose boughs upheld the roof with a branching tracery
of stone."  Similarly, Gimli compares the Glittering caves to "groves of
blossoming trees" and then calls them "glades of flowering stone."  The
beauty of stone and of Dwarvish stonecraft, one might say, is at its greatest 
when it takes an organic, tree-like form.
	This might stand in contrast to the craft of Saruman, who seems to
do his best to make Isengard and the surrounding area as unorganic and un-
treeish as possible.  He has cut down all of the flowering trees that used
to grow inside of the Vale and replaced them with vents, shafts, wheels, and
machines.  Along the road leading to Isengard "instead of trees there marched 
long lines of pillars, some of marble, some of copper and of iron, joined by 
heavy chains." Saruman's craft thus seems to be the aesthetic opposite of that
of the Dwarves. Instead of imitating trees, he destroys them or and erects 
metal and mechanical mockeries of them.  I think that it's hardly a 
coincidence that his downfall is directly brought about by trees (i.e. Ents 
and Huorns)--  it really seems to be a punishment that fits the crimes.
	
	

	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien