Quote:
|
Addicts/alcoholics get stuck on the habitrail of More. Gottagetit, gotta get more, gottagetit now
|
The defining quality of a practicing addict is an inability to stop once they have started. The theory that one is too many and a thousand never enough. This saying mirrors your more, more, more idea - there comes a point at which the 'hole' or need simply cannot be filled and the only option is to use more to get back back to the place they need to be; when the drug stops working but the addict can't stop needing it. It becomes a gruesome balancing act in the end. I have seen it up close many times. It is progressive and there is no reverse button, no victory can be had while using continues. If the Ring relates to alcohol for instance and that is your weakness, you wouldn't be searching for other drugs (rings) because that doesn't fill the hole properly. You would be using the Ring you have (alcohol) as often as you can - which Smeagol did.
Quote:
|
or to more of a high off the Ring
|
it seems possession of it alone was a high and provided some comfort to the bearer; like an addictive substance or behavior would, a case of dependency - not knowing how or if they will function without it - or at least believing so while in the throes of it, which passes eventually once the poor soul is liberated of the vice, hence one's reluctance to part with it. All three (Bilbo, Frodo, Gollum) were sorely put out when it came time to leave the Ring. Perhaps mere possession is even more rewarding than actual wearing.
Thanks for your points
dininziliel , the analogies can seemingly go on ceaselessly! It's fun to discuss but the inescapable conclusion is that there is no finite answer. In my mind it is the EVIL with a capital E nature of the Ring which is the driving factor in LotR. While, on the other hand powders, liquids and chemicals are all neutral substances, requiring MIS-use to wreak their brand of chaos.
Cheers,
Tar