# Why couldn't they get through the Redhorn Pass?



## BalrogRingDestroyer (Mar 20, 2018)

Gandalf is a freaking wizard. How could he not have gotten them through somehow? And why did Gimili act like the mountain itself hated them? 


Was there some sort of supernatural power like Sauron, Saruman, or even the Balrog blocking their way? Gandalf even made some comment that the malice of Sauron was behind the impassable pass. 


More to the point, why not take the Misty Mountains pass that Bilbo and the Dwarves took? It was right next to Rivendale.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Mar 21, 2018)

It may be a point of debate whether Gandalf would have had weather conditions under his control; the story suggests he had not.

In the dwarves' past they had met with much misfortune there (and they would soon discover more bad news there); Gimli certainly knew about much of the evil past.

As for the reason why they weren't taking the closest mountain pass, you might remember that while the Fellowship was waiting to depart from Rivendell scouts were sent out in all directions. From that, they learned the following:

_Even from the Eagles of the Misty Mountains they had learned no fresh news. Nothing had been seen or heard of Gollum; but the wild wolves were still gathering, and were hunting again far up the Great River._​
In setting their course towards Hollin, it was explained as follows, in line with the news they had from the eagles:


_Their purpose was to hold this course west of the Mountains for many miles and days. The country was much rougher and more barren than in the green vale of the Great River in Wilderland on the other side of the range, and their going would be slow; but they hoped in this way to escape the notice of unfriendly eyes. The spies of Sauron had hitherto seldom been seen in this empty country, and the paths were little known except to the people of Rivendell._​


----------



## Celebrimbors bane (Mar 31, 2018)

Not to mention the misty mountains were raised by morgoth a power far beyond Gandalf! So if it was the mountain itself playing up probably not much Gandalf could of Done, even if it was sauron doing it he's still more powerful than Gandalf the grey, so really yeah not much old gandy could do.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 14, 2018)

As often, Tolkien leaves it ambiguous. Such exchanges as this:

"I wonder if this is not some contrivance of the Enemy" said Boromir. "They say in my land that he can govern the storms in the Mountains of Shadow that stand upon the borders of Mordor. He has strange powers and many allies".
"His arm has grown long indeed, if he can draw snow down from the north to trouble us here three hundred leagues away", said Gimli.
"His arm has grown long", said Gandalf.

And others in a similar vein, could imply that the storm was caused by Sauron, but Gimli cautions against that view, and as Merroe said, he probably knows more about the mountain's history than any of the others, possibly even Gandalf.

IIRC, Tolkien at one point toyed with the idea that Sauron was directing all the various enemies encountered by Frodo & company, even Old Man Willow, but decided against it.

And keep in mind that the Istari were messengers, sent to help and encourage the people of Middle Earth, not to work miracles for them. Yes, they had "powers" of a sort -- Gandalf's association with fire makes him a kind of seraph figure -- but they were severely limited in what they could do, by the will of the Valar.


----------



## Kharina (Apr 23, 2018)

It is certainly left ambiguous in the story, although it does seem to be assumed by all the characters that there is some other force causing it, whether that's Saruman, Sauron or Caradhras itself. I suppose another option could be that it is just an unseasonably bad storm and the characters are being (understandably!) paranoid, another demonstration of Sauron's psychological power perhaps.

I wonder whether the Ring could influence the thoughts of people around it to make them more likely to think the storm was created by Sauron or some other agent rather than being 'just' bad weather, which might make them slightly more likely to turn back. Although either way it seemed very dangerous for them to have continued on that road- even without a malicious will behind it the storm itself was bad enough!

If it was Sauron or Saruman though you'd think they would have tried controlling the weather again, especially as the company gets nearer to them (e.g. after Lothlorien when they sail up the Anduin). And if Sauron knew where they were then you'd think he would have been able to send forces after them as well or at least keep tracking them until Frodo and Sam get near enough to Mordor that he can get them. I'd always thought Sauron wasn't aware that they planned to destroy the Ring and that's how he got away with it, so how would he know they were on Caradhras and why would he be so worried about stopping them?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 23, 2018)

Yes, I think it highly unlikely for Sauron to be aware of them at this point. I lean heavily toward the malevolence of the mountain itself, not only from the evidence of the episode as a whole, but also because it mirrors the Old Man Willow episode in Book I.

I won't go into all the ways the structure of Book II repeats that of Book I here, but in both episodes, Frodo & Co. learn that nature can be, not only benevolent, as in the Shire, but malicious. In Middle Earth terms, that would be due to the taint from Morgoth.

I'd tend to doubt that the Ring would be able to affect the members of the Fellowship (other than perhaps Boromir, who is a special case). In fact, that is an objection that has been raised by critics over the years: Tolkien wasn't "playing fair" with the Ring, having some characters corrupted by it, while others are seemingly not affected at all. I think that stems from a misunderstanding of romance conventions, more than anything else.


----------



## Kharina (Apr 23, 2018)

That's a good link between the mountain and the Old Man Willow sections of the story, I hadn't thought of that but they do link together really well!

You may well be right as I think you have a much greater knowledge of the wider Middle-Earth lore than me, but why would the Ring be unable to influence the other members of the Fellowship? Gandalf himself admits he could not have the Ring in his possession without eventually being tempted to use it and turning to evil, and I think Aragorn understands the same thing if he were to take it. The other Hobbits are probably at least as susceptible as Frodo, and when Sam does briefly take the Ring I think I remember him getting some 'visions' of being a great lord which he quickly realises are devices of the Ring and dismisses. Of course, the Ring was in his possession then and Gandalf fears it being in his possession rather than just being near it, so it may just be that it only influences everyone whose possession it's in and only some who happen to be close to it but not possessing it (Boromir and arguably Smeagol when he murders Deagol would be examples).


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 24, 2018)

The "minor" characters, if I may call them that for the moment (I mean Merry&Pippin, Gimli&Legolas) are, in romance terms, the Faithful Followers who help the hero in his quest, participating in his adventures, but not prey to the temptations and inner agonies he faces.

At least in the earlier parts of the story. But of course, Tolkien doesn't leave it there: with the breaking of the Fellowship, M&P begin their own separate, but important, adventures; G&L, for the most part, continue their companion roles, but attatched to Aragorn, whose King-quest comes to the fore, signalled by Gandalf's handing over the Palantir.

As for the others, Gandalf has previously refused the Ring, and Aragorn, with "Isildur's fault" present in his mind, would resist any temptation from the Ring, along with other reasons.

Your memory is right: Sam does indeed undergo the temptation of the Ring, but he had just been wearing the it,and was perhaps partly open to its effects; more importantly, he was standing at the entrance to Mordor, in sight of Mount Doom where the Ring had been forged, and as the story says,

"The Ring's power grew, and it became more fell, untameable save by some mighty will".

He passes the test, of course, but the episode has a function in the structure of symbolic imagery as well: his vision of himself as a mighty hero is a "demonic epiphany" (I'm following Northrop Frye's use of the term),; significantly, it takes place at the highest point of the pass, the high point, whether mountaintop, tower, or tree, being the traditional place of epiphanic vision. The true epiphany comes with Sam's star vision on the Morgai.

There are many such contrasted pairs in the story: for instance, Frodo's vision in the Dead Marshes is a demonic parody of the katabasis episode of the Mirror of Galadriel. But I digress.

As for Smeagol, bear in mind that his story is made up from what he was willing to impart, even under duress; it would be highly colored by his own view of himself, and of course the influence of the Ring. Gandalf filled in the story with his own shrewd guesses, but it's fairly clear that his was a mean nature from the start.

Bilbo, remember, possessed the Ring for many years, and except for the "stretching", neither he, nor the people he was closely associated with, seem to have been affected.

"Greater knowledge". Hmm, well, I don't know about that. I have been studying and thinking about LOTR for a long time, so that's just down to longevity; but I confess I often feel I'm still groping in the dark. I want to kick myself, for instance, whenever I think of how many years and readings it took for it to dawn on me that the attack on the house at Crickhollow is a -- "foreshadowing" is too weak a word; I'd call it a template -- of the assault on the gate of Minas Tirith. But then, it's just one more example of the ancient artifact Tolkien was so fond of: the riddle. Opaque until you "get it".

There is always more to discover. And that's what keeps us going back, again and again.

Kharina, have you left us already? Please come back -- you raise some interesting points!

I meant to underscore your mention of "possession"; it's a theme in Tolkien, one that he uses again and again. Recall Gandalf's exhortation to Bilbo:

"Go away and leave it behind. Stop _possessing _it." (My emphasis).

Possessiveness is seen as a fatal flaw in Arda, beginning with Melkor, extending through Aule, Feanor, and on down to to the Elves who manifest it through their desire to "preserve" things as they are,to not allow "their" Middle Earth to change. Galadriel recognizes this failing. And Tolkien emphasizes it several times in the Letters; he seems to view it as a trait acquired by Man in the Fall. Note the narrator's wry comments about Smaug in The Hobbit; there, it's a sort of funny irrational obsession; things turn darker in LOTR.

Certainly Sauron is the ultimate Third Age expression of it, and anything closely associated with him, the Ring most of all, would be heavily tainted with the same poisonous affliction.


----------



## Kharina (May 19, 2018)

Hi, I've not left, just been really busy with real-world things and also didn't see anything I had a lot of thoughts on so haven't posted in a while. Sorry, didn't mean to abandon you!

That's interesting what you say about possession- I wonder how much that ties in to what I might call the 'pro-nature, anti-industrialisation' theme that I see in LOTR, particularly in relation to Saruman and the Ents. I imagine Tolkien was living through a time of increasing industralisation and materialism, and I wonder whether the theme of possession being corrupting might link to this as well? I suppose this is getting a bit off the topic of the Redhorn gate though!


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 19, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> In Middle Earth terms, that would be due to the taint from Morgoth.


Not to mention Mountains are Morgoth's little addition to Middle-earth to impede Oromë in his travels, back in the ancient days.

Thought I should mention that. I guess Morgoth's taint is still yet felt.

CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 19, 2018)

I was under the impression it was only (or mainly) the Misty Mountains he raised for that purpose. It's been a long time since I read the relevant passage, though , so I may well be mistaken. 

Hi Kharina, nice to hear from you! Have you read "On Fairy Stories"? Tolkien goes into possessiveness and industrialization, and their connections, in that essay.

"Real world things". Ugh. I know what you mean. That's what I come here to get away from.

_Life. Don't talk to me about life. --_
Marvin the Paranoid Android


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 19, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I was under the impression it was only (or mainly) the Misty Mountains he raised for that purpose.


I had known that Morgoth raised mountains to impede Oromë, but at the same time wasn't sure which ones. I'll have to check myself.


CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 19, 2018)

It was in the published Silmarillion, wasn't it?

Anent Saruman and the storm, I see someone included the "Trololo" version in a scene remix here:






I wish they'd included the "lalalalalala" right at the end, though.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 19, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> It was in the published Silmarillion, wasn't it?


That is where I remember reading it. I'll have to see.


CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 19, 2018)

Just checked. Yes, page 54 of the HB. Interestingly, he says:

_Yet they were taller and more terrible in those days. . .
_
Which I take to mean they were much worn down and eroded by the Third Age. Or were tumbled somewhat in the Breaking. Or both.

Further down the page, the Elves come to the Ered Luin, but he doesn't mention a connection with Morgoth there.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 19, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Just checked. Yes, page 54 of the HB. Interestingly, he says:
> 
> _Yet they were taller and more terrible in those days. . .
> _
> ...


Huh. Thought they would mention him.

Thank you for checking.
CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 19, 2018)

No, you're right about the Misty Mountains. The line I quoted goes on:

_. . .and they were raised by Melkor to hinder the riding of Orome._


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 19, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> No, you're right about the Misty Mountains. The line I quoted goes on:
> 
> _. . .and they were raised by Melkor to hinder the riding of Orome._


Ah hah. There we are.
Thank you, Squint-eyed Southerner!
CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 19, 2018)

Yeah, I just meant the Blue Mountains weren't mentioned in connection with Melkor.

Sorry for being unclear. 

Not enough coffee. Come to think of it, it's tea-time!


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 19, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Yeah, I just meant the Blue Mountains weren't mentioned in connection with Melkor.
> 
> Sorry for being unclear.
> 
> Not enough coffee. Come to think of it, it's tea-time!


Ah.

No worries.

Enjoy!


CL


----------



## BalrogRingDestroyer (May 28, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> The "minor" characters, if I may call them that for the moment (I mean Merry&Pippin, Gimli&Legolas) are, in romance terms, the Faithful Followers who help the hero in his quest, participating in his adventures, *but not prey to the temptations and inner agonies he faces.*




Not quite true. Sam had the Ring for a while and was starting to fancy that he could use it to make himself Lord of the Gardens or something. Boromir also tried to take the Ring. And, as I'll mention in another thread, for all we know, Gimli, Legolas, Merry, Pippin, and even Aragorn could also have tried to take the Ring had they gone all the way to Mount Doom with it, even if they hadn't carried it. Sam was willing to die for Frodo, so the Ring would have a VERY hard time getting him to attack Frodo to take it.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 28, 2018)

As I thought was clear in that sentence, I was talking about the "minor" characters I named. Sam and Boromir were addressed in an earlier post.

I'll just add that when I call Boromir a "special case", I mean that he a tragic figure, in the generic sense: his story arc is that of the tragic hero, whose fall is not necessarily due to the traditional hubris, or "flaw", but can result simply from being placed in an impossible situation, or one for which he is unprepared.

In another post, I mentioned T.A.Shippey's discussion of the nature of evil in connection with the Ring: the "Manichaean", i.e. the Ring as a positive evil, and the "Boethian", in which evil has no real existence. The latter would mean that the Ring is a powerful artifact, a_ techne_, but not in itself evil, what Shippey calls "a sort of psychic amplifier", capable of doing great evil in evil hands, but good in good hands; in other words, _morally _neutral.

This seems to be Boromir's view. "Let the Ring be your weapon", he tells the Council. "Take it and go forth to victory!".
And at his crisis on Amon Hen:

_"These elves and half-elves and wizards, they would come to grief perhaps. . .True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted".
_
The tragedy of Boromir lies in the fact that he is a "traditional" martial hero, for whom the use of powerful weapons and artifacts, magical or no, would be a matter of course, in a traditional romance; they are the "plot coupons" of lesser fantasy. But in LOTR he is thrust into an unusual romance indeed; one whose main theme is not the claiming of power, but the _renunciation _of it. 

Looked at in this light, I believe his character and actions can seen with more understanding, even sympathy. It certainly makes Aragorn's words to him: "You have conquered. Few have gained such a victory" more intelligible. I feel this is one of the things missed in the movies.

As to what other characters might have done, it can make for interesting, even fun, speculation, but I was speaking to what they actually _did _do, which was fulfill their roles according to romance conventions.


----------



## Alcuin (May 29, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> …[W]hen I call Boromir a "special case", I mean that he a tragic figure, in the generic sense: his story arc is that of the tragic hero, whose fall is not necessarily due to the traditional hubris, or "flaw", but can result simply from being placed in an impossible situation, or one for which he is unprepared.
> …
> The tragedy of Boromir lies in the fact that he is a "traditional" martial hero, for whom the use of powerful weapons and artifacts, magical or no, would be a matter of course, in a traditional romance; they are the "plot coupons" of lesser fantasy. But in LOTR he is thrust into an unusual romance indeed; one whose main theme is not the claiming of power, but the renunciation of it.


Bravo! Faramir, who knew his brother better than anyone else (including Denethor!) sees it the same way:


> Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!





Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Looked at in this light, I believe his character and actions can seen with more understanding, even sympathy. It certainly makes Aragorn's words to him: "You have conquered. Few have gained such a victory" more intelligible. I feel this is one of the things missed in the movies.


The whole spirit of the tale is missed in the movies, which use Tolkien’s characters and his general plot to spin another, altogether different tale with different persona with different motives. 



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> In another post, I mentioned T.A.Shippey's discussion of the nature of evil in connection with the Ring: the "Manichaean", i.e. the Ring as a positive evil, and the "Boethian", in which evil has no real existence. The latter would mean that the Ring is a powerful artifact, a techne, but not in itself evil, what Shippey calls "a sort of psychic amplifier", capable of doing great evil in evil hands, but good in good hands; in other words, morally neutral.


Alternately, the author reveals that, in Boromir’s case, what might otherwise _appear_ to be “morally neutral” was instead driven by selfish ambition, even if it meant usurping the crown of the True King. Boromir in the throes of his lust for the Ring was already on the road to becoming a little Sauron, a bigger Gollum. Aragorn’s sharp rebuke of Boromir, and his obedience to Aragorn’s one and only command to him – “Boromir! I do not know what part you have played in this mischief, but help now! Go after those two young hobbits, and guard them at the least” – returned him to grace. 

It was Frodo who used the Ring in its most “Boethian,” neutral fashion in his dealings with Gollum in the Emyn Muil to enforce Gollum’s oath and on the approach to Sammath Naur on the slopes of Orodruin to condemn him for breaking it. In both cases, Sam saw his master with “other vision”, and on Orodruin actually saw the Ruling Ring through this “other vision” as a great ring of fire between Frodo and Gollum as Frodo used the power of the Ring. In fact, I think Gollum fell into the fire because Frodo used the One Ring:


> *If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.*



───◊───

We’re quite a ways from why the Company of the Ring couldn’t cross the Redhorn Pass, aren’t we?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 29, 2018)

I would put it this way: that what Boromir _thought _was the reasonable and logical choice, was actually the effect of the real evil of the Ring acting on him. This is not to say that his talk of using it to defend his people is merely a cover for his personal ambition; he loved Gondor, and really did believe what he was saying:

_'We of Minas Tirith have been staunch through long years of trial.We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. And behold! in our need chance brings to light the Ring of Power. It is a gift, I say; a gift to the foes of Mordor. It is mad not to use it, to use the power of the enemy against him'.
_
It is as his speech continues into "plans for great alliances and glorious victories to be" that we become more and more aware of how the Ring distorts _any _purpose, no matter how noble or seemingly selfless, playing upon, and attaching the personal ego to, that ideal.

I've posted elsewhere on my idea of the Ring as "unlimited ego" so I won't repeat it here; but I'm reminded of Sam's exchange with Galadriel:

_'I wish you'd take his Ring. You'd put things to rights. . .You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work.'
'I would,' she said. 'That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that,alas!'
_
She, of course, is far wiser than Boromir, but then she had had "many long years to ponder", not only what she might do with it, but also, importantly, on the nature of the Ring itself. And of course, she came to the right decision. Boromir had no such experience and wisdom to draw upon.

My impression is that Boromir has been probably the least understood character among critics of the work. Tolkien noticed it himself, in at least one letter. The evidence that they feel uncomfortable discussing him can be found in the paucity of index references to him in most critical works on the story.

Even the most astute critics seem to miss his significance, to an extent. Shippey, for instance, makes much of the parallel of "addiction" as a metaphor for the power of the Ring, and there's some truth in that, as expressed by Galadriel's lines quoted above, and also by Gandalf and Elrond: "neither strength nor good purpose will last". The use of the Ring's power becomes addictive, and as the wielder comes to rely on it to influence, and ultimately to dominate, the minds and wills of others, his (or her) own mind becomes corrupted. But none of this explains Boromir.

Of the weaker critics, the less said the better. I will mention one in this context though, because he quoted part of Boromir's speech:

_'How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!'
_
He then says: "This means that all men would be _forced _to flock to his banner" (his emphasis). That, it seems to me, is a deep misunderstanding, not only of Boromir, but of the nature of the Ring.

The entire Amon Hen sequence is so filled with symbolism, and so subtly rendered, that it repays careful reading, and requires more wide-ranging explication, than is possible (or advisable!) here; I've gone on far too long as it is, so will leave it for now.

PS: And yes, we're a bit far from the Redhorn Pass. Internet, thy name is "Off Topic"!


----------



## Alcuin (May 29, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I've posted elsewhere on my idea of the Ring as "unlimited ego" so I won't repeat it here…


Point us to the post, please: I’d like to read it. Is this a version of Lord Acton’s, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”?



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I'm reminded of Sam's exchange with Galadriel: … She, of course, is far wiser than Boromir, but then she had had "many long years to ponder", not only what she might do with it, but also, importantly, on the nature of the Ring itself. And of course, she came to the right decision.


Her decision at this point led to her permission (no doubt transmitted through Gandalf) to return to Aman at the end of the Third Age. 



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> My impression is that Boromir has been probably the least understood character among critics of the work. Tolkien noticed it himself, in at least one letter. The evidence that they feel uncomfortable discussing him can be found in the paucity of index references to him in most critical works on the story.
> …
> The entire Amon Hen sequence is so filled with symbolism, and so subtly rendered, that it repays careful reading, and requires more wide-ranging explication, than is possible (or advisable!) here; I've gone on far too long as it is, so will leave it for now.


I do wish you would expand upon these points. I had not thought of Boromir as a misunderstood character! I think Legolas is poorly conceived by most readers (and critics _and_ filmmakers), since Tolkien describes him as “tall as a young tree, lithe, immensely strong, … hard and resistant to hurt…” (_Book of Lost Tales II_, quoted in _Reader's Companion_) 



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Even the most astute critics seem to miss [Boromir’s] significance, to an extent… The … wielder [of the Ring] comes to rely on it to influence, and ultimately to dominate, the minds and wills of others, his (or her) own mind becomes corrupted. But none of this explains Boromir.


The Ring is “fraught with all [Sauron’s] malice; and in it lies a great part of his strength of old.” Sauron was, I think I recall, the greatest of all the Maiar: his personality was both rather overwhelming and overpowering; besides, the Ring was _made_ in order to overwhelm and overpower others, to dominate and control them. 

If you would, *Squint-eyed Southerner*, please elaborate on Boromir and his place in the story, in a new thread if necessary.

I am particular intrigued by your mention of the symbolism at Amon Hen. Tolkien was writing and reading in the company of the very best of critics and students of English literature of his day: Lewis and Dyson in particular. Please expound upon these themes.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 29, 2018)

Ouch-- those are quite some assignments you've given me! No time now, but I'll try to get back to them soon. Meanwhile, here's the post I mentioned:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php?threads/why-did-sauron-need-his-ring.9614/


----------

