War with Ourselves

While I do not believe Čapek is writing about any one phenomenon or problematic ideology in particular, there are many different compelling ways in which War with the Newts can be interpreted that are strongly reflective of the world we live in today. But before I can get into any type of interpretation of the book, I must clarify the ultimate question that arises from Čapek’s novel: who or what are the newts? Again, there are multiple possible answers, and none can be considered “correct” over the other. However, I do not believe the newts are some alien-like creatures, science fiction oddities, or even a metaphor for animals or genetic advancement. I see it quite simply: the newts are humans, the newts are us. 

I believe the newts have all of the qualities of human beings, but with key elements of humanity missing. The have a rudimentary, mechanical understanding of language, they do not enjoy or create art of any kind, they neglect individuality and everything considered “aimless, playful, fantastic, or ancient.” The newts embrace the “utilitarian,” the “mechanical and repeatable…” They represent the “brainless, half educated and smug type of civilised specimens” that humans risk transforming into every day (205). 

Because the newts are so successful, the risk of humans becoming “salamandarised” is not simply fiction, but reality. The newts appear to have everything figured out, by eliminating the “human” aspects of being human (because, well, they are newts). If we view the newts as representative of what humans have the potential to become, then we can see that our “war with the newts” is really a war with ourselves not to fall into the mediocrity of viewing the world through a lens of complacent fearfulness and “brainless” productivity, without art, perspective, or any type of critical examination of the world. 

The newts are happy and homogeneous, where the humans are doubtful, divided, and full of restless desire.  But is that not what it feels like to be human? I do not think Čapek has all of the answers, but I think, through this novel, he has shown us what we could be like, should we decide to reject the parts of ourselves that make us human. We would think that we were progressing rapidly, when in reality we would end up right back where we began, maybe even worse. It seems to me that Čapek is not arguing any one thing in particular, but rather he is arguing for humanity not to give into our own desire to be free from the restless nature of the human condition in exchange for what seems like a solution for the unanswerable, intrinsic problems of being human.