The Addictive Ring

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

But as the link in my post first indicates, the findings are now that a chemical "hook" is not necessary for addiction. It is, as Galadriel reminds us, emotional/psychological.

Indeed, which is why we can get addicted to all kinds of things which aren't chemical in nature, such as sex, being in control, success, gambling and gaming, approval of others etc. Whenever we want X bad enough that we feel maimed and deprived without it and we'll do anything, sacrifice anything to get it we're addicted. That, I think, is clearly the case with Gollum and the Ring.

Originally Posted by lmp

How could the ring not cut off human connection, rendering one invisible at the very least?

Yep. And I think it's symbolic in this context that the act by which Gollum took possession of the Ring, and thus the Ring of him, was murdering Déagol, his friend. He put his lust for the shiny thing above the bonds of friendship. And yes, he was outcast by his clan, as Morth reminds us, but only after he had stopped interacting with them as a kinsman and neighbour but turned against them:

Originally Posted by TFotR, The Shadow of the Past

'He used it to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. He became sharp-eyed and keen for all that was hurtful.'

Same with Frodo. Observe his reactions when he feels that others threaten to take the Ring from him, whether it's Bilbo in Rivendell wanting to touch it one more time, or Sam offering to carry it for him in Cirith Ungol. His first reaction is to lash out at his friends like a junkie defending his drug or a game addict if you try to take away his Nintendo. And I'm not sure we can blame it all on Sauron's power reaching out through the Ring, for what did it matter to Sauron whether one halfling or the other held the Ring?

At the end of the day, I don't see much of a contradiction here. Of course what we see at work here is Sauron's power, or rather the externalized part thereof embodied in the Ring, interacting with and working on the mind and will of the bearer, but I'd say addiction is the form this interaction takes.

[Mithadan]

In thinking about this issue, one must resist the temptation to categorize the Ring's influence within modern context. The Ring is not chemically, pharmacologically, physically or (exclusively) mentally addicting. While Middle Earth is, "historically", our Earth, it is different in a markedly important aspect. Preternatural power, call it magic if you will, though in some respects Tolkien seems to make a real effort to avoid "magic", perhaps as a writer would avoid a deus ex machina. The Ring has a power that deeply affects its wearers. Its attraction is "like" addiction, but it is something very different.

The Ring clearly tends to separate its bearers from humanity and fellowship, at the least as a side effect, though invisibility is clearly a barrier to interaction. Candidly, I never thought of this. Instead I ascribed Gollum's inability to get along with his family or anyone else to some inherent flaws within him exacerbated by the corruption caused by the Ring.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

In thinking about this issue, one must resist the temptation to categorize the Ring's influence within modern context. The Ring is not chemically, pharmacologically, physically or (exclusively) mentally addicting. While Middle Earth is, "historically", our Earth, it is different in a markedly important aspect. Preternatural power, call it magic if you will, though in some respects Tolkien seems to make a real effort to avoid "magic", perhaps as a writer would avoid a deus ex machina. The Ring has a power that deeply affects its wearers. Its attraction is "like" addiction, but it is something very different.

I second this. The Ring is dissimilar to our familiar addictions in another way, too.

In our world, there are certain persons who are more or less vulnerable to becoming addicted to various things. Case is point, both my grandfathers were alcoholics. I don't know the hows or whys. I myself, in my younger wild oats sowing, was known to drink "a bit" more than I should have, more often than was good for me, but I never reached that stage of addiction that required drinking every day, or even every other day.

Now the Ring is presented as irresistible ultimately, by anyone who seeks to keep it. A power beyond the normal is wielded by it, more spiritual than anything else.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I agree with the points that Mithadan has raised and that Inzil mentioned in his last post; the Ring certainly is something deeply supernatural, it is a powerful object made by the Dark Lord and so forth, so obviously there is more to it than "our common" drug addiction (although in regards to one person's life, there is little difference in how destructive they can be. They just are).

However, out of the posts above I find myself agreeing the most with what Galadriel55 and Pitchwife had mentioned here. I, personally, do see the description of the Ring's destructive addictive power as something we can relate to simply as humans. I have always seen it as one of the things in which art, a story, a metaphor, can be million times more accurate than a scientific paper. Simply because art gets in touch with us and describes - no, shows - us things in a manner we can all relate to. Yes, I believe Gollum's case is so clear and very perfect copy of how an addict's life might look like. But I don't think that required any experience with meeting morphine addicts from Tolkien (whether he actually did have any or not, I am not here to judge that), or any weird supernatural precognitions of what science is about to discover (that, in my opinion, would be venturing into a very dangerous territory). Addictions, like Pitchwife said, have existed since the dawn of mankind (and probably before), and it is just something each of us can have some intuitive idea of, because we all have the potential for it (if potential is a good word to use, I'd rather use some negative word).

There are other dimensions to the Ring, like it promising people something they crave for and twisting them according to their original ideals etc., but I wouldn't mix that with the addiction part. That has nothing to do with it, in my opinion. That is merely the way the Ring demands the "addict's" (bearer's) attention, but that doesn't change anything about the mechanism of the addiction, which is the same like of any other drug. Alcohol addiction makes you crave for alcohol, sex addiction makes you crave sex, opium addiction makes you crave opium, the Ring addiction makes you crave the Ring - wishing to have it in your pocket, on your finger; and then also to use it. What exactly do you use it for - whether to become the king of Gondor, to eat all the fishess in the world, to make Mordor a garden or whatever - is simply the "bonus" of the fact that the Ring adapts itself to the user, which a bottle of wine can't do. But the mechanism behind it doesn't change; if a bottle of wine was more clever, it could work the same way.

[littlemanpoet]

To be purist about the things of Middle Earth being Middle Earthish, and not having a modern context, contradicts Tolkien's own dictum that his story has many applications. The addictiveness of the Ring is one such.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

To be purist about the things of Middle Earth being Middle Earthish, and not having a modern context, contradicts Tolkien's own dictum that his story has many applications. The addictiveness of the Ring is one such.

However, Tolkien also disliked 'scientification' of LOTR, as his displeasure at lembas being called a 'food concentrate' showed.
Taking that route, Gollum would seem to be less an addict than a victim of Dissociative identity disorder, with his Slinker/Stinker personas.

I maintain that lust for the One Ring, since it derives from the spiritual power of an incarnate divine being has no real-world counterpart.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

However, Tolkien also disliked 'scientification' of LOTR, as his displeasure at lembas being called a 'food concentrate' showed.
Taking that route, Gollum would seem to be less an addict than a victim of Dissociative identity disorder, with his Slinker/Stinker personas.

I maintain that lust for the One Ring, since it derives from the spiritual power of an incarnate divine being has no real-world counterpart.

Your "dissociative identity order" suggestion is far more scientification than an application of addiction.

What you maintain presupposes that there is no spiritual power of an incarnate divine being in the real world, which I find presposterous.

However, the purpose of this thread is not theology, but addiction; so you have essentially argued yourself to a dead-end. So be it.

[Pervinca Took]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Yep. And I think it's symbolic in this context that the act by which Gollum took possession of the Ring, and thus the Ring of him, was murdering Déagol, his friend. He put his lust for the shiny thing above the bonds of friendship. And yes, he was outcast by his clan, as Morth reminds us, but only after he had stopped interacting with them as a kinsman and neighbour but turned against them:


Same with Frodo. Observe his reactions when he feels that others threaten to take the Ring from him, whether it's Bilbo in Rivendell wanting to touch it one more time, or Sam offering to carry it for him in Cirith Ungol. His first reaction is to lash out at his friends like a junkie defending his drug or a game addict if you try to take away his Nintendo. And I'm not sure we can blame it all on Sauron's power reaching out through the Ring, for what did it matter to Sauron whether one halfling or the other held the Ring?

Frodo felt a desire to strike Bilbo at this point, but he didn't act upon it. He also felt distress and amazement at the feeling. He similarly felt appalled and aghast after calling Sam a thief. Yes, he still felt and said those things, but did Gollum feel appalled at himself for such feelings and behaviour? Well, to a point, I think, but he lied to himself and tried to hide from it. The sun and daisies riddle reminded him of a time 'when he had been less sneaky and nasty, which made him bad-tempered.'

As for the second instance, I don't really think the circumstances are similar. Sméagol actually murdered for the Ring, and he had not at that point borne it or undergone any of the suffering which that entailed. Frodo had. He woke deprived of the Ring he had borne and resisted for a long time, not to mention traumatised and disorientated by sickness and orc-capture. Sméagol at that point hadn't had it in the first place. And what overcame Frodo is described as a delusion, a distortion of reality: 'The hideous vision had seemed so real to him, half-bemused as he still was with wound and fear'

As for blaming Sauron or not, I think the Ring was somehow hardwired to defend and preserve itself at any cost, including driving mad and immobilising anyone who tried to carry it to its destruction. Not that Sauron thought anyone would every try to destroy it. As for not caring which hobbit held it - Sauron knew nothing of hobbits when he forged his Ring. Their differences from each other, or from other races, wouldn't have entered into his calculations. The Ring itself may have sensed a difference, because it 'knew' it had an increasing hold on Frodo. It also seemed to 'think' carefully before taking a new bearer - 'Maybe ... a last trick of the Ring before it took a new bearer' (referring to the Ring falling off Bilbo's finger when he put it on to escape from Gollum and the orc-tunnel.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

As for blaming Sauron or not, I think the Ring was somehow hardwired to defend and preserve itself at any cost, including driving mad and immobilising anyone who tried to carry it to its destruction. Not that Sauron thought anyone would every try to destroy it.

It's an interesting thought. I wonder if, when he made it, Sauron ever envisaged the possibility that at some point it might be possessed by anyone other than himself?

I've always felt like there is depicted as being something rather spontaneous about the effect that the Ring has on its possessors. What I mean is, I always felt as if it engendered possessiveness and mistrust in its possessors because that was simply in the nature of such an object, even if its owner, such as Gollum or Bilbo, was not aware of it. The Ring is depicted as evil, I would argue, because its purpose is intrinsically malevolent: to dominate the minds and wills of other rational beings. And because that is depicted as such a great evil in Professor Tolkien's work, it causes other evils as well; it brings out various evils in others because it is very fundamentally evil in a manner from which other evils derive.

I'm not sure if what I'm saying is a bit redundant but that is how I tend to perceive the Ring's evil: that its own innate evil also brings out other forms of evil in those who possess it: not through design or the workings of Sauron's spirit (isn't it essentially a mindless object?), but simply through its ("unnatural") nature.