From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Technology and Morality in LOTR 
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:28:55 GMT

jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
>	Sauron and his minions have power over a number of horses.  The
>Black Riders, after all, ride upon real horses which are specially bred and
>trained for bearing them. Horses, however, just don't seem to pose the same
>dangers in his hands that the Rings, the palantiri, and other "technological"
>devices do.

Since we're speaking of horses, WHOA! here.
1.  Since when is magic "technological"?  I find a *large* difference between
    magic (wizardry) and "technology" (wheels and contraptions) in LOTR.  I
    think making the assumption that they are identical is too much of a leap.
2.  I fail to see how "the danger something would be in Sauron's hands" is
    relevant to the discussion.  An Ent in Sauron's hands would pose a rather
    large danger, yet I see no indication that Tolkien was anti-tree.  Please
    make a distinction between how the item was portrayed versus the
    possibilities for abuse.
3.  Gandalf, Galadriel, and Elrond (and Aragorn, in his manner) also used
    magic, for the benefit of many.  Many "devices" the Dwarves used to
    build were semi-magical toys.  Thus, this sems to indicate that magic
    is not associated with "technology" but is a force in its own right.

>	That's just begging the question.  In LOTR, these Elvish 
>"technological" items _are_ all tainted with some degree of moral
>danger and ambiguity.

Not necessarily.
Sauron's One Ring was made by him and is altogether evil.
The Nine were made by Sauron to corrupt men, and are evil.
The Seven were made for the Dwarves to build gold and treasure, but
    Sauron found them out.  But the worst he could do was cast a "bad
    luck" spell on the wearer.  He could not do anything more.
The Three were made "for knowledge and healing".  It is highly likely that
    if Sauron obtained the One, the Three would be sensed and anything done
    with them would not only be noticed, Sauron could probably take appropriate
    countermeasures.  It is not clear whether the Three could become evil,
    only that anything done with them would prove useless if Sauron obtained
    the One.

> Regardless of whether or not the palantiri are 
>"inherently evil," their moral status in the narrative is highly 
>questionable--  to say the least.  Sauron may have spent a lot of time
>gaining control of these and other "technological" objects, but that doesn't
>change the fact that they are associated with evil, corruption, and 
>temptation.

I belive this is a tad one-sided.

The Palantir of Orthanc also allowed Aragorn to show himself to Sauron
to challenge him, gave Frodo and Sam a push towards
Mount Doom (remember their encounter with the orc troop?) and cleared the way
for them afterwards.  It also allowed Aragorn to see the peril at Lossarnach
and Belfalas so that he could come more swiftly.

I believe the interpretation was that only those who had the right to use
the Palantiri should have used them.  Those who used them in weakness
(Saruman and Denethor, to gain knowledge; Pippin, to see what it was) were
corrupted by their weakness (Saruman - power and control; Denethor - paranoia;
Pippin - impatience, no corruption because he repented).  Those whom Sauron
could use no weakness (Aragorn) survived the test of the Palantiri.  Even
Gandalf himself was weak (curiosity, to see the distant past), but knew that
his weakness and the fact that he was not the rightful owner of the Stone would
make it nearly impossible for him to survive looking into the Palantir.

>	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA