Radagast in The Hobbit Film (SPOILERS)

[TheLostPilgrim]

Apparently, in the Hobbit film, Radagast literally has a bird's nest in his hair and his beard and hair are covered in bird droppings.

''He is wearing a funnily-shaped hat with dominant brown and black hues, underneath which is revealed a bird’s nest with hatchlings making a mess all in his hair and beard! McCoy brings a disarming, childlike quality to the character. . . ''

"Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown credits costume and make-up with helping him develop his character. His dormouse-like wizard (with animals running in and out of his beard) has a bird’s nest on his head. He said: ‘The birds don’t like to mess their nest so they stick their bottoms out and poo down my face.’

Also, in a drastic change from the source material, Radagast is the first wizard to visit Dol Guldur and discover that an evil power has established itself there. Later, Saruman makes slighting references to Radagast during a meeting with Gandalf and Galadriel. He accuses the Brown Wizard of indulging in mushrooms and dismisses the notion that the evil power Radagast has discovered could be Sauron.

"at one point, the wizard Saruman scathingly says of Sylvester McCoy’s character Radagast that “mushrooms have addled his brain”

He also has a pet hedgehog named Sebastian.

[Morthoron]

Apparently, in the Hobbit film, Radagast literally has a bird's nest in his hair and his beard and hair are covered in bird droppings.

''He is wearing a funnily-shaped hat with dominant brown and black hues, underneath which is revealed a bird’s nest with hatchlings making a mess all in his hair and beard! McCoy brings a disarming, childlike quality to the character. . . ''

"Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown credits costume and make-up with helping him develop his character. His dormouse-like wizard (with animals running in and out of his beard) has a bird’s nest on his head. He said: ‘The birds don’t like to mess their nest so they stick their bottoms out and poo down my face.’

Also, in a drastic change from the source material, Radagast is the first wizard to visit Dol Guldur and discover that an evil power has established itself there. Later, Saruman makes slighting references to Radagast during a meeting with Gandalf and Galadriel. He accuses the Brown Wizard of indulging in mushrooms and dismisses the notion that the evil power Radagast has discovered could be Sauron.

"at one point, the wizard Saruman scathingly says of Sylvester McCoy’s character Radagast that “mushrooms have addled his brain”

He also has a pet hedgehog named Sebastian.

Hmmm...sounds suspiciously derivative of Merlyn in T.H. White's classic The Once and Future King. Merlin had the requisite bird droppings down his robes and a nest of mice in his hair, and a hedgehog plays prominently in the book and the follow-up, The Book of Merlyn, wherein the informal and malaprop-ridden hedgehog refers to King Arthur as "Maggie's Tea" (Your Majesty), or just "Tiggie".

So, it's already been done, and better.

[Boromir88]

As far as the accusation of Saruman that Radagast is strung out on mushrooms, supposedly the further artistic license taken by Jackson is Radagast sustains himself on mushrooms and trippy berries. Hence, as a way to explain his loony behavior.

I was semi-looking forward to Saruman's disdain for Radagast. I mean if Radagast is going to be in the film, might as well include Saruman's total lack of respect for him too, that would be nice. But if it's just going to be more recycling of Saruman's verbal backhand to Gandalf "Your love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind." Fan-tastic. :rolleyes:

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

I am glad they showed Radagast as the cowardly simpleton he was.
His apathy during the War of the Ring has always been absolutely indefensible to me so it was nice to see both Gandalf talking down to him like a child and Saruman ranting about the guy and his poor personal hygiene.

One of Tolkien's most intriguing characters and perhaps one I hate the most. A villain is expected to do evil things, a hero is expected to act with virtue, but someone so completely indifferent is just infuriating to me.
It suggests cowardice, something untrustworthy and rotten.

[Galin]

Hmmm...sounds suspiciously derivative of Merlyn in T.H. White's classic The Once and Future King. Merlin had the requisite bird droppings down his robes and a nest of mice in his hair, and a hedgehog plays prominently in the book and the follow-up, The Book of Merlyn, wherein the informal and malaprop-ridden hedgehog refers to King Arthur as "Maggie's Tea" (Your Majesty), or just "Tiggie".

So, it's already been done, and better.

Did White's Merlyn have a nest of mice in his hair? I'm not arguing but I don't recall. I know he kept dead mice and worms under his skull-cap, and at one point the Wart thinks Merlyn's hair (Merlyn still has his hat on at this point) at least shows signs that seem to indicate a large bird had been nesting in it.

At least White's Merlyn kept pyjamas for wiping off the bird droppings from his head, which got there when the wizard took off his hat and his owl might then perch upon his head.

[Elf_NFB]

I am glad they showed Radagast as the cowardly simpleton he was.
His apathy during the War of the Ring has always been absolutely indefensible to me so it was nice to see both Gandalf talking down to him like a child and Saruman ranting about the guy and his poor personal hygiene.

One of Tolkien's most intriguing characters and perhaps one I hate the most. A villain is expected to do evil things, a hero is expected to act with virtue, but someone so completely indifferent is just infuriating to me.
It suggests cowardice, something untrustworthy and rotten.

Don't be mean. Never be mean. Just because we don't KNOW what Radagast was doing doesn't mean he was being a coward. It just means that Tolkien didn't tell us. In the books, he carried a message to Gandalf and set his animal friends to help. Perhaps he was organizing an animal revolt in Mirkwood? Perhaps he was making a nice cup of tea and feeding the rabbits? We don't know. Any speculation tells more about the speculator than the subject. I prefer to think he was doing his part to help save the small animal populace returning to Mirkwood and by his efforts, the Greenwood made a more rapid return to prominence than otherwise would have been possible. ;)

[Morsul the Dark]

Honestly thought Radagast was great I saw no humor in the bird's nest on his head, what Isaw instead was a wizard so devoted to protecting the animals he scooped up the nest and put it on his head. the rabbit sled sounded silly but was used to good effect in my opinion. We already had two tall standing competent wizards glad to see radagast bend the archetype somewhat.

[Sarumian]

I was pleasantly surprised by Radagast in the movie. He was not such as I imagined him, however, I am ready to accept this version of the character for movie purposes.

First of all, he is a part of a wide picture of Middle Earth. If in LoTR films they had to cut chunks of the original story and attempt to reduce this picture to filmable size, in The Hobbit they can present more characters and history. Thus Gandalf introduces wizards in a nicely way, beginning with a weather talk and even tolerating Bilbo asking if other wizards are really worthy or just like Gandalf himself.

Our first impression of Radagast is that this is a silly wizard (I love Silly Wizard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyw8veJx_4Y&list=AL94UKMTqg-9As8zy90L1my1rZIgC7_Zwb&index=2) :)) who is unable to control the course of events when they go grim. It looks as if he is incapable of saving his friend (Sebastian is probably not very typically ME name) and seems to be in danger himself, with something like Nazgul about to break in. However he remains totally concentrated on his task and suddenly comes up with such a powerful spell that the hedgehog starts breathing and opens his eyes; and whatever it was outside has gone. This silly wizard is indeed a Maia.

Going to check Dol Gudur after finding out the malice of its new inhabitants, Radagast proves he is a valiant wizard. There he manages to defeat and disarm a Nazgul (probably Witch King), and comes under the direct attack of Sauron himself. That leaves him shattered but he was still able to take the Morgul blade and present it to Gandalf.

Races on the rabbit sledge look a bit silly and unnecessary but do not ruin the movie. In the end a little bit of silliness suites The Hobbit.

Checking Dol Gudur, taking the blade as a trophy and meeting Sauron face to face - all this plays a very important role in the story: Gandalf obtains a confirmation that his attempt to regain the Lonely Mountain is a right move. This also can explain why Radagast would be reluctant to fight openly: he was one of the few who faced Sauron's direct assault.

The bottom line is that people who seem silly and weird should not be overlooked. They sometimes can be worthy and contribute a lot.

[Glorthelion]

Radagast was sort of a fan fiction character in the movie. What I mean is that Peter Jackson is making up stuff about Radagast like his bunny sled and lodgings. I was entertained by the bunny chase scene though. The bird **** on his hair made him look like an imbecile though. I'm not saying the inclusion of Radagast is a bad thing though.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Radagast was sort of a fan fiction character in the movie. What I mean is that Peter Jackson is making up stuff about Radagast like his bunny sled and lodgings. I was entertained by the bunny chase scene though. The bird **** on his hair made him look like an imbecile though. I'm not saying the inclusion of Radagast is a bad thing though.

Radagast is an imbecile. And a criminally apathetic one at that.

[cellurdur]

I hated Radagast in the film (though I supported his appearance). He was just not what a member of the Istari should have been. There is one thing loving animals, but it is another having no dignity. If anything in the books he comes across as slightly snobbish with the way he looks down at the Shire. Having bird drops on his head was not only disgusting but beneath a Maia. I will not even mention the use of mushrooms as a psychedelic drug. Was very disappointed with him in the film.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I liked Radagast's portrayal - though I'm not too keen on the bird-dropping hair. The scene with the hedgehog was something I found very interesting and showed something fundamental about him.
He's an Istari, an Ainur, a powerful wizard with the skill to subdue the spiders and remove the dark curse. However, he chose to channel his powers into the tiny, helpless hedgehog. You may call this petty and a waste of his powers, but no doubt this is how Saruman saw Gandalf. Why waste time on halflings and Dwarves? Why bother with pipeweed and simple things when there is great power and doom going on?
Radagast would probably get on well with the Ents, I imagine.

I didn't like the bunny sled when it was leading the Orcs on a merry chase. In the forest it seemed okay as it was mostly hidden and could be overlooked easily. It just struck me as something popped in to entertain the younger audiences and possibly for some future merchandise.

[Alcidas]

I didn't like the bunny sled when it was leading the Orcs on a merry chase. In the forest it seemed okay as it was mostly hidden and could be overlooked easily. It just struck me as something popped in to entertain the younger audiences and possibly for some future merchandise.

Games Workshop would probably make a bunny sled miniature and sell it for £50 per kit or something

[McCaber]

Just how Gandalf cares for the little people of Middle-Earth, Radagast (a step down in him in power) cares for its creatures.

In the War of the Ring, I could easily see him using his powers to act as a force multiplier for the elves in Mirkwood. What use is an army of orcs if you can split them up, isolate them, and hunt them down in small bands?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

In the War of the Ring, I could easily see him using his powers to act as a force multiplier for the elves in Mirkwood. What use is an army of orcs if you can split them up, isolate them, and hunt them down in small bands?

Excellent point; remember that according to the Silmarillion, during the battle of The Last Alliance, even the animals took sides, some upon one side, some upon the other. Except for the elves.

[Lalwendë]

I hated Radagast in the film (though I supported his appearance). He was just not what a member of the Istari should have been. There is one thing loving animals, but it is another having no dignity. If anything in the books he comes across as slightly snobbish with the way he looks down at the Shire. Having bird drops on his head was not only disgusting but beneath a Maia. I will not even mention the use of mushrooms as a psychedelic drug. Was very disappointed with him in the film.

Do wizards need such a pathetic thing as dignity? I say 'pathetic' because surely a wizard, in Tolkien's creation or indeed in any other writer's, is an inherently powerful being, much more so than a mere Man. 'Dignity' is something we humans need to set ourselves above or apart from the common herd and wizards by their nature have no need of that.

McCoy's portrayal of Radagast is not unlike a lot of figures in folklore - eccentric, unfathomable, even a bit disgusting.

As for him being 'silly', it puzzles me that when Jackson chose to excise the 'silly' things from the essentially very serious Lord of the Rings text, such as Tom Bombadil, he was praised. Yet when he chooses to echo the incredibe silliness of the text of The Hobbit, he is lambasted.

I wasn't keen on a hedgehog being named 'Sebastian' as the name was a bit jarring (I associate it with Brideshead Revisited and posh people's children), though I have my suspicions that might be McCoy's idea or an in-joke somewhere along the line.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I wasn't keen on a hedgehog being named 'Sebastian' as the name was a bit jarring (I associate it with Brideshead Revisited and posh people's children), though I have my suspicions that might be McCoy's idea or an in-joke somewhere along the line.

Indeed it is! Or so he said when I heard him talk at a Doctor Who convention a few months back. ;)

But Sebastian isn't so bad. I mean, we've got the trolls; Burt, Tom, William; Bill the pony (and Myrtle, Daisy etc), so it doesn't seem so jarring to me in that context.

[Lalwendë]

Indeed it is! Or so he said when I heard him talk at a Doctor Who convention a few months back. ;)

But Sebastian isn't so bad. I mean, we've got the trolls; Burt, Tom, William; Bill the pony (and Myrtle, Daisy etc), so it doesn't seem so jarring to me in that context.

My geek-dar is in tune then and I was correct ;)

I suppose I just really do not like the name 'Sebastian' because I associate it with snooty beggars. Because Tom, Bert and William have no jarring effect on me at all! Though....Tolkien does use names like Sam, which is also a fairly ordinary name. I can't think of any other characters with names similar to or the same as real life toff's names.

[Morthoron]

My geek-dar is in tune then and I was correct ;)

I suppose I just really do not like the name 'Sebastian' because I associate it with snooty beggars. Because Tom, Bert and William have no jarring effect on me at all! Though....Tolkien does use names like Sam, which is also a fairly ordinary name. I can't think of any other characters with names similar to or the same as real life toff's names.

St. Sebastian is the patron saint of hedgehogs. St. Sebastian, if you recall, was martyred by being shot through with arrows; ie., he was a human pincushion; ergo, pincushions and hedgehogs are alike.

As far as Snooty Hobbit names, there are several, such as Sancho, Fredegar, Mirabella, Ferdinand, Rosamunda (Spanish), Otho, Hugo (Norman), Everard (Burgundian), Gerontius (Latin), Gordaboc, Gormadoc, Meriadoc (Welsh), Ordovacar (Gothic), Sigismond, Adalrida (Germanic).

Still, Sebastian sounds off, particularly since Radagast is a Maia with no upper middle class Hobbit friends and no Spanish in his background. Just weird and yet another jarring moment in TH:AUJ.

[Lalwendë]

St. Sebastian is the patron saint of hedgehogs. St. Sebastian, if you recall, was martyred by being shot through with arrows; ie., he was a human pincushion; ergo, pincushions and hedgehogs are alike.

As far as Snooty Hobbit names, there are several, such as Sancho, Fredegar, Mirabella, Ferdinand, Rosamunda (Spanish), Otho, Hugo (Norman), Everard (Burgundian), Gerontius (Latin), Gordaboc, Gormadoc, Meriadoc (Welsh), Ordovacar (Gothic), Sigismond, Adalrida (Germanic).

Still, Sebastian sounds off, particularly since Radagast is a Maia with no upper middle class Hobbit friends and no Spanish in his background. Just weird and yet another jarring moment in TH:AUJ.

Even the inbred and insane English upper classes don't use names like those! Hugo perhaps, though that's a bit 'trendy' nowadays. They all sound far too sinisterly Celtic or Iberian for the English to use them.

I'm waiting for the extended DVD so I can hear what McCoy has to say about it (well, what he has to say about anything really, since he's always worth listening to).

[Morsul the Dark]

St. Sebastian is the patron saint of hedgehogs. St. Sebastian, if you recall, was martyred by being shot through with arrows; ie., he was a human pincushion; ergo, pincushions and hedgehogs are alike.
.

this knowledge shall be repeated many times tomorrow

[Legolas]

I was disappointed in Radagast's portrayal as a whole. McCoy was a potentially worthy choice, and the more serious parts of the role were done well. I'm also okay with him being a little silly or spaced out.

Unfortunately, the extent of his stuttering and hyperactivity overshadowed that - especially with how heavy they are when he first appears. That first impression will stick with those just being introduced to him, and I think that's a pity.

He could've been a bit more absent minded than the condescending Saruman or the warm, personable Gandalf, but a bumbling clown smeared with bird droppings was not at all what I had in mind.

I am glad they showed Radagast as the cowardly simpleton he was.
His apathy during the War of the Ring has always been absolutely indefensible to me so it was nice to see both Gandalf talking down to him like a child and Saruman ranting about the guy and his poor personal hygiene.

One of Tolkien's most intriguing characters and perhaps one I hate the most. A villain is expected to do evil things, a hero is expected to act with virtue, but someone so completely indifferent is just infuriating to me.
It suggests cowardice, something untrustworthy and rotten.
I don't think any of it is his fault, though. Radagast was miscast. I don't mean in the movie, but for his Istar role in the actual war as an emissary to Middle-earth. That Saruman had disdain for Radagast does not surprise me in the least as Saruman often comes across as dismissive. When someone is in the least bit a hindrance or threat to him or his rank, he gets cranky.

At the council when the Istari were chosen, there were initially just three planned, and only two volunteered: Saruman and Alatar. Olorin was summoned by Manwe as third, Alatar brought Pallando as a friend, and importantly, "[Saruman] took [Radagast] because Yavanna begged him." Aiwendil [Radagast] was not banging down the door to go himself.

His 'boss' roped him into it, and after we see how it plays out, it seems entirely probable that it actually went as intended. As the council had originally "resolved to send out three emissaries," Yavanna could have seen no harm in including a fourth of her own, set out to look for creatures that the other three would not have the time or purpose.

There is no hint of an explanation of why Yavanna's evident desire that the Istari should include in their number one with a particular love of the things of her making could only be achieved by imposing Radagast's company on Saruman; while the suggestion in the essay on the Istari that in becoming enamoured of the wild creatures of Middle-earth Radagast neglected the purpose for which he was sent if perhaps not perfectly in accord with the idea of his being specially chosen by Yavanna. (Unfinished Tales)

[Rhod the Red]

And why does a wizard always have to look in a spiffy robe?

Obviously not every one will or should. Each has their own personality & lives to lead.

[Lalwendë]

Now...about that Rabbit sled. "Where did that come from?" "What the....?"

In the words of our greatest Welsh poet. It's not unusual.

Amongst others are these:

Beatrix Potter (http://charminglittlebunny.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/img_0990.jpg)

Vintage 1800's British advert (http://imagehost.vendio.com/bin/imageserver.x/00000000/aapaperc/yj5188xa.jpg)

German Christmas card (http://tuckdb.org/system/images/000/127/139/extra_large/2011_09_07_16_17_18.jpg?1315437472)

And also even more to be found amongst many lovely vintage Easter cards featuring rabbits pulling little carts, like this:

Easter bunny cart (http://i.ebayimg.com/t/D338-Postcard-Easter-Greeting-white-rabbit-pulling-boy-in-cart-with-colored-eggs-/00/s/NjgyWDEwMjQ=/$%28KGrHqNHJEoE+WIkmzO%29BP4PikWe8w~~60_35.JPG)

[Galadriel]

I may have liked PJ's Radagast in the Narnia films, but he needs to be kicked out of Middle-earth. Now. Rabbits pulling a sledge and outrunning Wargs? I've never met Tolkien, but I'm pretty sure he'd weep his heart out if he saw that part, if not lose consciousness.

[Galin]

At another site the rabbit sled was characterized as hailing from Northern sources, and others seemed to be very thankful for the information, giving the impression [to me] that they thought the idea was thus better defended because it hailed from sources Tolkien had read* or was aware of, and could be characterized as Northern. And I only say 'others' because, even if so, I would find this rather broad in any case.

Or from another perspective: the idea was argued to not be wholly original. But if it was, I'm guessing it would be defended with: '... at least it's imaginative and wholly original!'

__________

*Bifur's brow bursting brain befuddler was likewise compared to a piece of hone once lodged in Donner's head.

[Rhod the Red]

The aghast at the bird droppings is rather laughable for me.

Remember this is pre-Medieval times. Personal hygiene, etc, was best for the aristocracy & royalty. Everyone else washed maybe once a week in a creek, or tub if they could.

Where's the complaint about unkempt hair and tattered clothes? We're lucky these things aren't more severe & only portrayed for Evil characters as ignoring/having difficulty with appearance/health. Naturally they're more widespread. Only after battle are the 'good guys' shown to have wounds or blood stains, apart from Aragorn when 'Strider'.

[Galin]

I'm not sure anyone in any times kept birds under their hats. And even White's Merlyn kept pyjamas to wipe his head off, when his Owl might land on his head and cause a mess.

And from the pictures I have seen, this is a notable amout of droppings on a part of the body I would think an Istar of Rhosgobel might want to attend to.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"And why does a wizard always have to look in a spiffy robe?

Obviously not every one will or should. Each has their own personality & lives to lead."

In case you hadn't noticed, Gandalf's robes are pretty shabby around the edges. But what he does have- what *any* of Tolkien's Istari had, regardless of "personality," was dignity- something Elmer Fuddagast has none of whatsoever.

[Boromir88]

Not being able to wash up, or in some way bathe regularly, is not at all the same as just letting birds defecate on you. Spin it however you want, Radagast's appearance was more of the same over the top, ridiculous lack of subtlety from Jackson. (And I say this as someone who for the most part, enjoyed the movie, including the way Radagast was used. But his appearance is Jackson going overboard again.)

There is absolutely nothing wrong or rude about Legolas' post. So, can we please move on from that topic?

[Rhod the Red]

Well, as I pointed out earlier, the location of Radagasts' residence was hardly conducive to regular washes. I don't recall even in the movie a slight glimpse of a stream, etc, unless I missed it.

Nor Toklein addressing these kinds of lifestyle issues. He focused on the story events and themes, not these lifestyle decisions ;). So it relatively a speculative issue. Did he CHOOSE to leave that poop on his face, or have difficulty regularly washing?

[Mithalwen]

Water is the essential for life, embodied even a maia presumably needs to drink and animals do. Radagast must have had access to a stream or spring.

[Rhod the Red]

That's speculation. So don't bother putting it in an online encyclopedia profile page like on Tolkein Gateway, it'd be removed.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I wonder why this film is generating such animosity? Please post politely and on the subject - posts that simply address other members' right to hold their own opinions, etc. will be deleted without warning. Should the animosity continue, the thread will be closed.

Thank you!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Though I must say that I have *never* heard of a forum where evidence-based arguments are *forbidden*.

TORN. Or at least, factual content is irrelevant there if the post doesn't conform to the forum requirement of slobbering PJ-worship.

[Rikae]

It may not be a rule here, but like the rules you sometimes see like 'Don't roll eyes' it can be seen as unfair, or bullying, whatever phrase you want to use, to respond in an online forum with facts, especially a lot of facts. It doesn't matter if the post is 100% true, you're being unfair to the other poster.


What on earth? Using facts is bullying, and unfair...? I'm pretty sure everyone here has access to the Silm and thus to the same facts, and I don't think I'm wrong in believing most of us here appreciate informative, well researched posts! I don't know what these other forums you refer to are, but they certainly sound lovely.

On topic, I'm actually a bit torn about Radagast. I was put off by his costume and lack of dignity at first, but then it started to seem appropriate: he has become immersed in the natural world, and is thus not disgusted by its messiness. Like someone else mentioned, a shepherd becoming like his sheep, or an ent becoming treeish. It looks like an altered state of consciousness, psychedelic mushrooms aside; there is something zen about him.

"certainly the sparrow has Buddha nature. Indeed it is very intelligent; it knows that Buddha is very compassionate, that is why it left its droppings on the head of the Buddha instead of leaving it on the head of a hawk! " (http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enEnlightenment5.htm)

"Also, Buddhist monks used the droppings to polish and clean their bald scalps." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uguisu_no_fun)


;)

[Galin]

'... So it relatively a speculative issue. Did he CHOOSE to leave that poop on his face, or have difficulty regularly washing?'

I would say he either chose to, or maybe was so out of his mind that he wasn't aware of bird droppings running down to his shoulders in his hair, despite that he seems aware that he kept birds under his hat.

Or maybe you have some other reason? Not washing because he doesn't have easy access to water doesn't cut it in my opinion, as...


A) I doubt Tolkien's maps intend to show every source of water in the lands depicted, never mind the collection of rain.

B) One doesn't necessarily need water to wipe excrement off of one's head. White's Merlyn didn't.

[Lalwendë]

I'm probably closer to Radagast in terms of experiencing rural filth than most others here ever will be. And I'm old enough to remember the 1970s when it was normal to only have a bath once a week, whether you had an indoor bathroom or not. I also worked on my brother's travelling shop and we went to the really isolated farms on Saturdays. At one old farm, a couple had moved the bed into the 'kitchen', which was just a room with a range, a sink and a load of hens running round and pooing on the table/chairs/everything. The filth was spectacular.

As for poo, one day I was wearing my nice new brown M&S anorak while messing with my nan's hens and as usual carrying them round under my arm, ending up with my pockets full of dung. One of the jobs my boatmen ancestors did in the 1800s was load their barges with 'nightsoil' to spread all over the fields and grow taters and carrots in. Yum!

Has nobody heard of the saying "Muck for luck?" It's a way of laughing off the highly likely chance that you will get pooed on by a pigeon/seagull in the UK. If you're sat on the graveyard wall and enjoying a bag of chips and get divebombed you don't go screaming like a girl for antiseptic wipes, you just let it dry and then pick it off later. No sense in letting your chips go cold. :D

All of which is my way of explaining that rural filth was very much a part of life not many years ago, and a lot of us aren't even now that bothered by it, so it's not something I have to suspend disbelief on one little bit to accept that anyone living in the middle ages or the wildwood might get covered in guano and muck.

[Galin]

... so it's not something I have to suspend disbelief on one little bit to accept that anyone living in the middle ages or the wildwood might get covered in guano and muck.


Are you going to argue that any of your scenarios (in post 47) are really equivalent to what we have with Jackson's character? No doubt if you have birds living under your hat you might get bird droppings on your head... so you wipe the droppings off your head when they occur, water or no; and especially that much.

I haven't seen anyone complain that Radagast is generally unclean, it's the over the top treatment of Peter Jackson's 'Radagast' that appears to be the objection.

[Galin]

Not washing because he doesn't have easy access to water doesn't cut it in my opinion, as...

By the way I apologize for not writing the more obvious and thus better 'doesn't wash' instead of 'doesn't cut it'.

Drat.

[Lalwendë]

By the way I apologize for not writing the more obvious and thus better 'doesn't wash' instead of 'doesn't cut it'.

Drat.

I often get staircase wit myself - it's annoying ;)

Are you going to argue that any of your scenarios (in post 47) are really equivalent to what we have with Jackson's character? No doubt if you have birds living under your hat you might get bird droppings on your head... so you wipe the droppings off your head when they occur, water or no; and especially that much.

I haven't seen anyone complain that Radagast is generally unclean, it's the over the top treatment of Peter Jackson's 'Radagast' that appears to be the objection.

What I'm saying is it wasn't that odd at all to me. I've seen enough muck on and around country folk. Which is exactly what Radagast is - he has nobody to impress but presumably a lot of animals taking up his time. He's eccentric, a loner, and most of all, he's busy - he's not going to stop in his rush to meet up with Gandalf and wipe up birdpoo off his head.

Might be an age and cultural thing though as to whether people find it a step too far or are accepting that someone might be that care less.

[MithrilPants]

That's speculation. So don't bother putting it in an online encyclopedia profile page like on Tolkein Gateway, it'd be removed.

irony :rolleyes:
so much irony

[Rhod the Red]

Might be ironic for you but it's a fact. The user Morgan for example is visceral towards anything outsourced.

[Galin]

White's Merlyn kept dead mice and worms under his skull cap, and looked like something had been nesting in his hair... but even he makes note of the pyjamas for wiping bird droppings off the wizard's head.

Which would take but a few moments, for even a busy Istar, I would think.

[Legolas]

The guideline about quoting is referring to excessively quoting others' post(s), i.e. dissecting a post by making each sentence of that post into a separate quote so that you can write a retort to every. single. word. someone. said. ;)

It is not at all intended to place a limit on the amount of information you can place in a post, e.g. facts, quotes from actual books, etc. That sort of thing is actually valued in a discussion forum based on an author's extensive catalog of literature! As many of you have guessed, providing facts and textual support for opinions is encouraged. As with anything, there could be a line for overdoing it (like pasting two complete chapters in response to a single sentence), but I assure you that providing a single quote (as I did) does not come close to crossing that line.

I don't find it to be speculation that Rhadagast would've needed and had access to water. The Istari, Maiar in nature they may be, were subject to mortal needs during their incarnate period:

For [the Istari] must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and weariness coming from the flesh. (Unfinished Tales)

He had to have water from somewhere. If nothing else, his home would not have been that far from the Anduin River. Rhadagast had no trouble with mobility - though I suspect his primary method of travel was his horse, not a sled pulled by rabbits (!).

...which reminds me of another problem I had with Rhadagast's portrayal - that his home, Rhosgobel, was shown as nothing more than a shack, a rather spontaneous looking heap of wood and foliage. Part of the name (-gobel) suggests it was protected by a wall, fence or hedge-like barrier (perhaps similar to Beorn's).

When Gandalf is telling the Council of Elrond about encountering Radagast on the road near Bree, he says:

It was Radagast the Brown, who at one time dwelt at Rhosgobel, near the borders of Mirkwood. (The Fellowship of the Ring)

The fact that Rhosgobel even has such a name makes me feel sure it was more than a dilapidated, gnarled tree house, but that choice of words - "at one time dwelt at Rhosgobel" - gives even more reason to suspect it was a respectable or at least notable place. Was it more than a house? A particularly large residence? A village? It's unfair to assume Gandalf is just namedropping for sake of doing so (or to inform readers). Why would he mention the name to the Council? He must have thought he was providing some frame of reference for at least some in his audience. Furthermore, it is mentioned in "The Ring Goes South" that some of Rivendell's scouts passed by Rhosgobel.

Legloas, you could have just stated that Saruman was a snob towards Radagast even before they set out for Middle-earth and leave it at that.

Nor fling 'emissaries' like some kind of tennis ball you want to murder another player with.

My point was not that Saruman already disliked Rhadagast; it was that Saruman doesn't like anyone who doesn't serve him. He is dismissive all around.

I'm not sure how it comes across that I am flinging emissary as a euphemism, or that I am "exaggerating" it with "blatant overuse." Does it carry some other strong connotations that the rest of us don't always associate with the word? If so, that's understandable, but emissary here is the exact word Tolkien used when he wrote about the Valar selecting the Istari who were to stir Elves and Men against Sauron. Simply put, an emissary is "a representative sent on a mission." They were emissaries of the Valar.

[Morthoron]

...which reminds me of another problem I had with Rhadagast's portrayal - that his home, Rhosgobel, was shown as nothing more than a shack, a rather spontaneous looking heap of wood and foliage. Part of the name (-gobel) suggests it was protected by a wall, fence or hedge-like barrier (perhaps similar to Beorn's).

Not "hedge" but "hedgehog", in this case a mammoth hedge pig by the name of "Spiny Norman" whose enemy went by the name of "Dinsdale Pirhana". Spiny Norman eventually left Rhosgobel and is believed to be living in an airplane hangar at Luton Airport.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gJoLExaNLt0/R7TFJWHTxLI/AAAAAAAAADA/IZAYbVK6bD0/s400/dinsdale.gif

[Rhod the Red]

Emissary has an official inference though, the Istari's mission was secret. The casual reader would think otherwise because the word 'emissary'. That was the point I was making.

With, say Disney's Sword in the Stone, it shows at the start Merlin using water from a well outside his residence, so yes adaptions to a film/cartoon can have realism factors included in it. PJ didn't do that with Rhadagasts' home. We didn't even see an outside toilet nor the sled parked outside it, etc.

[Galin]

With respect to the name: Hammond and Scull note: rhosc 'brown' + gobel 'walled house or village 'town'. In his unfinished index Tolkien notes: 'Rhosgobel as 'russet village or town (enclosure).' And this is basically repeated in the Unfinished Tales index.

To me (not a trained linguist however) it looks like *go-pel with pel being 'fenced field' (compare Pelennor).

Sindarin go- looks to mean 'together' according to Quendi And Eldar and other sources, and looks to be the same element as in Legolas, which in letters later than Q&E, Tolkien explains golas(s) as meaning 'collection' of leaves.

Words, Phrases And Passages: 'WO- WONO- together (of things in company but not physically actually joined) (...) Sindarin go, gwa...'

While perhaps not definitive, I would guess Rhosgobel was more of a village than a single, even if fenced, dwelling. As in the index noted above.

__________

Hammond and Scull have published an interesting comparison between Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast (Reader's Companion to The Lord of the Rings, page 244 - 245) entry: 'Radagast the fool!...'

Tolkien apparently looks again at the postcard Ber Berggeist [there are birds in the trees in the picture] which had influenced his conception of Gandalf, and writes (in part):

'Gandalf or Radagast? Gandalf. He was the friend and confidant of all living creatures of good will (...) Radagast was fond of beasts and birds, and found them easier to deal with; he did not become proud or domineering, but neglectful and easygoing, and he had very little to do with Elves or Men although obviously resistance to Sauron had to be sought chiefly in their cooperation. But since he remained of good will (but not much courage), his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments. Saruman is sufficietly revealed in the story...'

But then Tolkien goes on to compare the physical appearance of Saruman:

'It would seem from the beginning he adopted a visible form of commanding stature and noble countenance. Unlike Gandalf, who in contrast would appear stumpy, and in certain aspects comic or grotesque in looks and manner.'

In a variant version of a part of this text: 'it is clear that Gandalf (with greater insight and compassion) had in fact more knowledge of birds and beasts than Radagast, and was regarded by them with more respect and affection.'


Jumping back in time, back to The Istari essay (1954):

'The first to come was one of noble mien and bearning, with raven hair, and a fair voice, and he was regarded by well nigh all, even by the Eldar, as the head of the Order. Others there were also: two clad in sea-blue, and one in earthen brown; and last came one who seemed the least, less tall than the others, and in looks more aged, grey-haired and gre-clad, and leaning on a staff.'

Of course this is before Radagast lost his way in Middle-earth, but my general impression is that Gandalf was the 'least' according to outward appearance, while yet the 'greatest', as it would prove considering all things, within. Again I can accept that Radagast became more rustic looking over the years, but I think Jackson's portrayal goes much too far, if it wasn't obvious by now anyway.

And I know defenders of Jackson's version especially might disagree, or possibly even argue that parts of this could support Jackson's version, but I thought I would post this anyway.


By the way, my earlier post (post 49) was meant to be 'ironical' or something: more obvious does not necessarily mean 'better'.

[Mithalwen]

Emissary has an official inference though, the Istari's mission was secret. The casual reader would think otherwise because the word 'emissary'. That was the point I was making.

Emissary comes from the Latin "sent out". Among its meanings are spy and secret agent. Speculative casual reader may have been thinking of embassy possibly.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red
Emissary has an official inference though, the Istari's mission was secret. The casual reader would think otherwise because the word 'emissary'. That was the point I was making.
Emissary comes from the Latin "sent out". Among its meanings are spy and secret agent. Speculative casual reader may have been thinking of embassy possibly.
Yes, like many words, it has a lot of meanings, and shades of meaning. You can't just arbitrarily decide one of them is the only true one– and then get outraged that other people don't follow your personal usage.

[Mithalwen]

However you chastised the use of emissary on the grounds that the Istari were on a secret mission.

[Nogrod]

I don't care that much about Radagast's uncleanliness or the status of his dwelling... what bothered me about Radagast in the movie was that he was potrayed as a kind of a cartoon-retard mad scientist ("Rabbits of Rhosgobel" are not that far away from Bugs Bunny) comic relief - and then adding his part in actually being an informant in grave matters looked soo fabricated.

I mean you can be immersed with nature and turn into a hermit with idiosyncratic stuff, sure, and Tolkien's portrayal of Radagast gives every license to that reading of him as a character, but as one of the Maiar it is hard for me to see him as what PJ and his team made him; but needing someone to be laughed at - like Gimli in the LotR.

[Lalwendë]

Which would take but a few moments, for even a busy Istar, I would think.

I still think it's a matter of taste and expectation and it doesn't bother me. Maybe I have a strong stomach. From experience in trying to fly out of the house with a baby and catch the bus, I've left the house with sick stained/ripped/unsuitable clothes on many a time and I went to work with my clothes on inside out just a couple of weeks ago. ;) Sometimes there's just not time to worry.

With respect to the name: Hammond and Scull note: rhosc 'brown' + gobel 'walled house or village 'town'. In his unfinished index Tolkien notes: 'Rhosgobel as 'russet village or town (enclosure).' And this is basically repeated in the Unfinished Tales index.

To me (not a trained linguist however) it looks like *go-pel with pel being 'fenced field' (compare Pelennor).

Sindarin go- looks to mean 'together' according to Quendi And Eldar and other sources, and looks to be the same element as in Legolas, which in letters later than Q&E, Tolkien explains golas(s) as meaning 'collection' of leaves.

Words, Phrases And Passages: 'WO- WONO- together (of things in company but not physically actually joined) (...) Sindarin go, gwa...'

While perhaps not definitive, I would guess Rhosgobel was more of a village than a single, even if fenced, dwelling. As in the index noted above.


Fair enough analysis - it could be that there was a settlement there at some point, as we know Woodmen have been active around there, though have suffered from attacks lately when the events of The Hobbit occur.

He had to have water from somewhere. If nothing else, his home would not have been that far from the Anduin River. Rhadagast had no trouble with mobility - though I suspect his primary method of travel was his horse, not a sled pulled by rabbits (!).

...which reminds me of another problem I had with Rhadagast's portrayal - that his home, Rhosgobel, was shown as nothing more than a shack, a rather spontaneous looking heap of wood and foliage. Part of the name (-gobel) suggests it was protected by a wall, fence or hedge-like barrier (perhaps similar to Beorn's).

The only thing I didn't like about it was in the wide view shown in John Howe's design artwork - it was perilously close to looking like Hagrid's hut. Though there may well have been some kind of wall or hedge, we just didn't see that (hopefully we will see more later on). The concept of it being built around a tree is quite appealing though, both in a Middle-earth and real world context. We have flets in Middle-earth and this is another approach to making use of the existing structure of a solid tree. In the real world dwellings are built around trees - there was a fisherman's cottage across the fields from our family home that had an Oak as part of the gable structure and a pub of the same vintage (Tudor, at least) a few villages away that made the same use of a tree. It also riffs on the Robin Hood myth of the Major Oak, and has 'green' connotations, so I have no objection to the concept.

However, I'm in two minds about whether he would have had a horse. Would this be practical in the wildwoods?

[Morthoron]

Emissary has an official inference though, the Istari's mission was secret. The casual reader would think otherwise because the word 'emissary'. That was the point I was making.

Emissary is most certainly applicable. Just because you haven't the faintest idea of the word's meaning does not disqualify its proper usage. In any case, the "official" inference applies to the Istari, as they were sent on a specific mission by the Valar. If you looked up the etymology for the word "emissary" (which in your case would be profitable), you will find the following:

L. emissarius, lit. "that is sent out," from emissus, pp. of emittere "send forth".

The word was used by the Romans in regards to spying, or an agent sent out on a secret mission. It is certainly not as specific as "ambassador" which implies a letter of credentials being turned over to another government.

As far as what the "casual reader" would think, I would hope they would look up the word if they were unsure of the meaning. This is how one attains a better vocabulary. But the Istari were emissaries of the Valar; in fact, that is a word Tolkien uses on several occasions in regards to them in his Letters.

So you are completely out of line on several levels.

[Boromir88]

For Radagast, I enjoyed how he kind of dropped out and disappeared from the first movie. It's fitting considering his book character. I hope he's dropped out of the movies for good, but I doubt it.

[Rhod the Red]

Can I ask, are you saying you would prefer him to have been excluded from presentation in this/these films?

If PJ were purist there'd be only 1 scene of him, in the Fellowship of the Ring. Are you sure that's the way it ought to be, if it is?

[Galin]

I still think it's a matter of taste and expectation and it doesn't bother me. Maybe I have a strong stomach. From experience in trying to fly out of the house with a baby and catch the bus, I've left the house with sick stained/ripped/unsuitable clothes on many a time and I went to work with my clothes on inside out just a couple of weeks ago. ;) Sometimes there's just not time to worry.

Well I don't want to compare stomach strengths (not that I could in any event), but if the film consistently portrays Radagast trying to catch a rabbit sled with an infant in his arms, I might better understand why he leaves some [IMO] significant bird droppings on his head.

;)

Fair enough analysis - it could be that there was a settlement there at some point, as we know Woodmen have been active around there, though have suffered from attacks lately when the events of The Hobbit occur.


Thanks. The attempted linguistic analysis was more due to Legolas' wondering about the name, not to try and prove Jackson had made some kind of blunder with respect to the books.

I don't find a tree house, or that it might not seem to be part of a larger village, necessarily objectionable for a film. Generally speaking anyway. But that said, I haven't seen this film yet, although I have seen images of Radagast, and read people chatting about how over the top he is as a character...

... some people anyway. And since I find Jackson's treatment quite often to be over the top for my tastes...

[Morthoron]

Yes, the Istari were representatives of the Valar, though in the unofficial sense. Because their mission was secret with restrictions on their uses of Magic, etc.





They were thought to be Emissaries (in terms of this tale from the Far West beyond the sea), and their proper function, maintained by Gandalf, and perverted by Saruman, was to encourage and bring about the native powers of the enemies of Sauron

and -

I am sure you are right: Gandalf was of course always old. He was an Emissary, who had that shape from the first...

and again -

The power of the Ring, over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion - but it is not the whole picture...

and yet again for added emphasis -

...[Gandalf] with the other Istari, wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon.

and one more time to bludgeon you with the facts -

The istari are translated 'wizards' because of the connexion of 'wizard' with wise and so with 'writing' and knowing. They are actually emissaries from the True West, and so immediately from God, sent precisely to strengthen the resistance of 'good', when the Valar became aware that the shadow of Sauron is taking shape.

In three instances, Tolkien's capitalization of "Emissaries" and "Emissary" clearly indicates a title and official nature of their secret mission. There are four more instances of Tolkien using the words emissary or emissaries in regards to the istari in his letters.

[Lalwendë]

Well I don't want to compare stomach strengths (not that I could in any event), but if the film consistently portrays Radagast trying to catch a rabbit sled with an infant in his arms, I might better understand why he leaves some [IMO] significant bird droppings on his head.

Radagast with a baby? I suppose if in twenty years' time I have enough money to do a re-imagining of The Hobbit that would really upset people then I'm going to include that. ;)




Thanks. The attempted linguistic analysis was more due to Legolas' wondering about the name, not to try and prove Jackson had made some kind of blunder with respect to the books.

I don't find a tree house, or that it might not seem to be part of a larger village, necessarily objectionable for a film. Generally speaking anyway. But that said, I haven't seen this film yet, although I have seen images of Radagast, and read people chatting about how over the top he is as a character...

... some people anyway. And since I find Jackson's treatment quite often to be over the top for my tastes...

Take a look at the John Howe concept art, it doesn't look very much different in the film itself so you will get a good idea without having to go to the cinema. I'd say it's less a 'tree house' and more a house built around a tree.

I mean you can be immersed with nature and turn into a hermit with idiosyncratic stuff, sure, and Tolkien's portrayal of Radagast gives every license to that reading of him as a character, but as one of the Maiar it is hard for me to see him as what PJ and his team made him; but needing someone to be laughed at - like Gimli in the LotR.

I certainly didn't laugh at him, I can say that. I thought he was quite bonkers, but he wasn't comic to me. I wonder who finds him funny here?

[The Barrow-Wight]

If I'm not mistaken, and I'm not, this thread is about Radagast in the Hobbit Film. Let's get back to that topic and away from talking about each other. Keep it civil or I'll have to shut it down - as well at the accounts of those who do not heed this post.

**edit ** For now, I will edit a few posts.

**2nd edit ** Yikes! What a mess. You all need to stop making a mess in the barrow!

[Sarumian]

I'm not sure anyone in any times kept birds under their hats. And even White's Merlyn kept pyjamas to wipe his head off, when his Owl might land on his head and cause a mess.

And from the pictures I have seen, this is a notable amout of droppings on a part of the body I would think an Istar of Rhosgobel might want to attend to.

This makes me think, in turn, about Bob Marley and "40 species of insects in his hair". Another city legend characterising a peculiar person with a great talent.

[Bêthberry]

On topic, I'm actually a bit torn about Radagast. I was put off by his costume and lack of dignity at first, but then it started to seem appropriate: he has become immersed in the natural world, and is thus not disgusted by its messiness. Like someone else mentioned, a shepherd becoming like his sheep, or an ent becoming treeish. It looks like an altered state of consciousness, psychedelic mushrooms aside; there is something zen about him.

"certainly the sparrow has Buddha nature. Indeed it is very intelligent; it knows that Buddha is very compassionate, that is why it left its droppings on the head of the Buddha instead of leaving it on the head of a hawk! " (http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enEnlightenment5.htm)

"Also, Buddhist monks used the droppings to polish and clean their bald scalps." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uguisu_no_fun)


;)

I'd like to go back to this idea which Rikae has suggested, not that I want to argue with her, but because I have been thinking about the characterisation of someone who cares for animals.

Western culture has not been particularly kind to animals, based as it was/is on a hierarchy which sees humans as superior to animals and which does not grant souls to sentient life other than humans, thus making the slaughter of animals acceptable. Yet there have been many philosophers, teachers, and writers who have reminded us that a measure of our humanity is how we treat animals.

Schopenhauer claimed, in The Basis of Morality the following:


“Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.”

Much research in contemporary psychology is proving that psychopaths and sociopaths begin their path of hatred by indulging in cruelty to animals.

So I have long wondered why Tolkien makes one of his failed Maia fail possibly because he became too involved with animal needs--or simply be characterised by a great love of animals. Is this an irrelevant quality or something related to Tolkien's vision of Middle-earth? Certainly I would expect that Tolkien would be well versed in Saint Francis' creed.

Yet Tolkien has animals play evil parts; to his everlasting shame ;) he denigrates cats! And crows are supposed to be the vile spies of Sauron. I need not go into wargs or spiders. Perhaps this comes from traditions in fairy tales. But he has allowed himself to present animals as negative creatures and he has suggested that Radagast misses his mission because he becomes too concerned for animal welfare.

It's not exactly a ringing Buddhist endorsement for the sanctity of all life, but then I wouldn't expect Tolkien to be a Buddhist.

Then we have Radagast as portrayed in the movie. Some see him as totally engrossed and involved in animal life as to be at home with bird droppings on him. Others find this gross and an indignity to his position as one of the Maiar. (I'm not thinking of any posts specificially but generalising.)

Since I haven't seen the movie, I cannot say what I think of the depiction, but it seems to me that we can ask a couple of questions about what this depiction means.

Why is, in Lalwende's words, being bonkers portrayed as being totally overtaken by animals? Can we take the movie to suggest the old western tradition that animals are beneath humans and therefore any one concerned with animal well being and living close to nature like an animal is somehow less human, less close to divinity (or high elven values), less able to fight off evil?

Is it too much to ask if the depiction of Radagast raises questions about the place of animals in the moral framework of Middle-earth?

[Lalwendë]

I've always found Tolkien to have confused messages about animals and the environment in his work. But really, he has the same attitudes as most people do (or did, in regard to the environment, not sure we are so kind to that right now). He has creatures he likes or admires and in his creation he accords them with the corresponding status. Other creatures, he's clearly not so fond of - cats and spiders for example.

The Catholic Catechism states:


“Animals are God’s creatures. By their mere existence they bless Him and give Him glory. Thus men owe them kindness.”

There's an expectation that Catholics treat animal life with respect. But there's also no requirement to become vegetarian or anything similar. So I don't think we could have expected Tolkien to have a more modern, green attitude. He maybe even saw too much focus on animals over humans as slightly indulgent - I know that a huge character failing that British culture has is that we so often privilege animals over children (I doubt a secret film of a woman putting a child into a wheelie bin would have generated as much outrage as the one of a woman putting a cat into a wheelie bin did), and often to fatal ends when the family dog ("He was as daft as a brush" is the usual cry) attacks them.

Perhaps Tolkien, having been through war and seeing at first hand what human suffering looked like, took a more practical stance and really did think humans merited higher preference?

[Bêthberry]

. . . I know that a huge character failing that British culture has is that we so often privilege animals over children (I doubt a secret film of a woman putting a child into a wheelie bin would have generated as much outrage as the one of a woman putting a cat into a wheelie bin did), and often to fatal ends when the family dog ("He was as daft as a brush" is the usual cry) attacks them. . . .

Yes, as I do recall, I believe you had a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals eons before you had any child welfare legislation or health provisions. ;)



. . . . The Catholic Catechism states:
Animals are God’s creatures. By their mere existence they bless Him and give Him glory. Thus men owe them kindness.

And there is, as I said, certainly St. Francis' work. Yet saying something is not the same as doing something. After all, there are prohibitions against murder in the Ten Commandments but that didn't stop pograms against Jews in the Middle Ages or witch hunts and burnings. In general, the attitude towards the lesser status of animals is common in Western culture.

I agree with you that Tolkien's use of animals appears related to his own personal preferences--although the eagles clearly have a genesis in biblical references--but really my question is more to the point of why Radagast's love of animals is so closely tied with his failings.

Is he a buffoon because he loves animals or are his animalistic habits a sign of his madness? And what are we to think of Peter Jackson, who apparently wishes to modernise the female presence in Middle-earth as he wanted to modernise Aragorn's style of heroism or manhood, but who seems quite happy to use animals as the butt of jokes and crudity? Or does his politically correct consciousness not extend to animals?

[Ben K.]

Is he a buffoon because he loves animals or are his animalistic habits a sign of his madness? And what are we to think of Peter Jackson, who apparently wishes to modernise the female presence in Middle-earth as he wanted to modernise Aragorn's style of heroism or manhood, but who seems quite happy to use animals as the butt of jokes and crudity? Or does his politically correct consciousness not extend to animals?

Yep, PJ has PC'ed the treatment of animals.

The Elves are implied to be vegetarian (one of dwarves query where the meat is at in Rivendell as he looks upon some greens on his plate). A philosophy endorsed by Elves is high praise indeed in Middle Earth.

Yes, Radagast is no stranger to buffoonery but a buffoon whose heart is portrayed as in the right place. He also does useful stuff like distracting the orcs and informing the Council that the Enemy is back. He appears to be using his innate Istari power to rescue animals in one scene. Ultimately, I think the writers wanted to portray him as an eccentric genius character and yes, a good guy.

I'm betting dollars on animals playing a key part in the battle of Dol Guldur too, a la the Ents.

I am a fan of the character, especially since I detect a hint of buffoonery in all the Istari already. I read them as all being failures, with Gandalf needing God himself to give him a second chance.

[Morthoron]

And there is, as I said, certainly St. Francis' work. Yet saying something is not the same as doing something. After all, there are prohibitions against murder in the Ten Commandments but that didn't stop pograms against Jews in the Middle Ages or witch hunts and burnings. In general, the attitude towards the lesser status of animals is common in Western culture.

I agree with you that Tolkien's use of animals appears related to his own personal preferences--although the eagles clearly have a genesis in biblical references--but really my question is more to the point of why Radagast's love of animals is so closely tied with his failings.

Is he a buffoon because he loves animals or are his animalistic habits a sign of his madness? And what are we to think of Peter Jackson, who apparently wishes to modernise the female presence in Middle-earth as he wanted to modernise Aragorn's style of heroism or manhood, but who seems quite happy to use animals as the butt of jokes and crudity? Or does his politically correct consciousness not extend to animals?

Beth, in regards to animals Tolkien relied heavily on folkloric motifs throughout his corpus. This is readily apparent even in The Hobbit: Bear=Beorn relative to Anglo-Saxon and even earlier Norse motifs, the references to the Old English and Yorksire derivations of spider (ie., 'attercop', 'lob', 'cob'), Warg (from the Norse/Icelandic 'vargr', related to the deity Fenris/Fenrir, and also the A/S Beowulf 'grund-wyrgen' or 'warg of the deep'), the white stag/hart is drawn from Celtic/Brythonic lore and either presages the faery realm or the breaking of 'tynged' ('taboo', or in Irish 'geasa'), etc.

Elsewhere, horses are noble and it is also noble to ride them (the Rohirrim were utterly appalled that someone would even imply they would sell horses to Sauron); crows are harbingers of death (hence carrion-crows hanging around the gibbet or battlefield), thus the pejorative "stormcrow" levelled at Gandalf; and cats have always been associated as demonic familiars for witches; even the cock crowing prior to the charge of the Rohirrim in Gondor is a biblical motif.

[Bêthberry]

Beth, in regards to animals Tolkien relied heavily on folkloric motifs throughout his corpus. This is readily apparent even in The Hobbit: Bear=Beorn relative to Anglo-Saxon and even earlier Norse motifs, the references to the Old English and Yorksire derivations of spider (ie., 'attercop', 'lob', 'cob'), Warg (from the Norse/Icelandic 'vargr', related to the deity Fenris/Fenrir, and also the A/S Beowulf 'grund-wyrgen' or 'warg of the deep'), the white stag/hart is drawn from Celtic/Brythonic lore and either presages the faery realm or the breaking of 'tynged' ('taboo', or in Irish 'geasa'), etc.

Elsewhere, horses are noble and it is also noble to ride them (the Rohirrim were utterly appalled that someone would even imply they would sell horses to Sauron); crows are harbingers of death (hence carrion-crows hanging around the gibbet or battlefield), thus the pejorative "stormcrow" levelled at Gandalf; and cats have always been associated as demonic familiars for witches; even the cock crowing prior to the charge of the Rohirrim in Gondor is a biblical motif.

Yes, of course you are right, Morth, about the folkloric bits. So, does this suggest that Tolkien was simply "placing" Radagast in a folkloric context by having him so close with animals, fitting one of his wizards into fairie?

And then there's the next bit, just how appropriately or successfully does Jackson reproduce such folkloric elements? Or is his rendition just Jackson excess?


I'm betting dollars on animals playing a key part in the battle of Dol Guldur too, a la the Ents.

Ooooh. Does that include entwives too?

[Lalwendë]

I agree with you that Tolkien's use of animals appears related to his own personal preferences--although the eagles clearly have a genesis in biblical references--but really my question is more to the point of why Radagast's love of animals is so closely tied with his failings.

I would say that to put it simply, Radagast was not doing what he was sent there to do, namely to help the peoples of Middle-earth. As Saruman was not. And the Blue Wizards. Time and again Tolkien shows us that the animal life and the beings existing on the blurry boundary between flora/fauna and 'people' (e.g. Ents) are actually quite self sufficient and self sustaining. The Ents do not want the 'help' of men or Istari. The Mearas and the Eagles likewise are proud creatures and do not want help.

Note that the 'good' people of Middle-earth are not really shown to use animals much aside from horses and ponies. Those who do make extensive use of animals (wargs, dragons, oliphaunts, crows, etc) are more often on the side of evil.

Is he a buffoon because he loves animals or are his animalistic habits a sign of his madness? And what are we to think of Peter Jackson, who apparently wishes to modernise the female presence in Middle-earth as he wanted to modernise Aragorn's style of heroism or manhood, but who seems quite happy to use animals as the butt of jokes and crudity? Or does his politically correct consciousness not extend to animals?

Are there jokes made at the expense of animals? I can't think of any so you will have to help me out here!


The Elves are implied to be vegetarian (one of dwarves query where the meat is at in Rivendell as he looks upon some greens on his plate). A philosophy endorsed by Elves is high praise indeed in Middle Earth.

Yes, Radagast is no stranger to buffoonery but a buffoon whose heart is portrayed as in the right place. He also does useful stuff like distracting the orcs and informing the Council that the Enemy is back. He appears to be using his innate Istari power to rescue animals in one scene. Ultimately, I think the writers wanted to portray him as an eccentric genius character and yes, a good guy.

Actually, I can't think of any instances in any of the books of Elves eating meat, so I am going to have to do a search for that...And we will have Beorn coming up who notably does not eat meat (though he is not a vegan!).

I like the phrase 'buffoon' - it's not a malicious term at all, it's gentle and seems to suit someone who has gone off-task and is eccentric, even in Middle-earth terms. People who find Boris Johnson amusing call him a 'buffoon' affectionately. I have other terms I prefer to use though, as 'buffoon' is far too nice ;)

the references to the Old English and Yorkshire derivations of spider (ie., 'attercop', 'lob', 'cob'),

It's not a Yorkshire dialect word except very rarely and only archaically even then. It's a Lancashire dialect word still in everyday use. The ultimate origin in England is as likely to have been Norse from eitterkopp given that this has more influence on Northern England (clearly both the Norse and Old English shared the same root back on the continent so it's swings and roundabouts). If heard spoken by a Lancastrian it sound thus: ehyterkop. Tolkien probably saw it in The Owl and the Nightingale, which was clearly written by a Northerner.

'Lob' as in 'Lazy Lob' could also take humour from lobcock which means an idle good for nothing. And 'crazy Cob' from the term used right across the North for being angry: "getting a cob on".

Thankfully Tolkien did not stumble upon the Lancashire dialect words for mice and dandelions.

And then there's the next bit, just how appropriately or successfully does Jackson reproduce such folkloric elements? Or is his rendition just Jackson excess?

Quite possibly he does, given that the one place I did find lots of these 'bunny sleds' was on vintage german Christmas cards. There's obviously something in german folklore or fairy tale about rabbit sleds, but I'm at a brickwall on that as it's something I'm not that knowledgeable on.

[Morthoron]

Yes, of course you are right, Morth, about the folkloric bits. So, does this suggest that Tolkien was simply "placing" Radagast in a folkloric context by having him so close with animals, fitting one of his wizards into fairie?

And then there's the next bit, just how appropriately or successfully does Jackson reproduce such folkloric elements? Or is his rendition just Jackson excess?

Nowhere does Tolkien directly describe Radagast's physical description in detail (he has a brown robe :rolleyes:), but based on the limited amount of dialogue he has with Gandalf, he does not sound like he's tripping on shrooms. And he rides a horse, not on a sled led by a hair-raising harem of hares.

Because of the lack of description, Jackson decided to lift elements wholesale from T.H. White's The Once and Future King (Radagast is a psychedelicized version of Merlyn, of that I am positive). I have quoted passages describing Merlyn elsewhere that are unequivocal. I love T.H. White's Merlyn, but I don't love him plopped in the middle of Middle-earth, not anymore than I would like to hear a conversation between Sir Pellinore and Gollum. Well, maybe that would be funny.

But Radagast's attitude towards nature has no direct precedent in folklore, really, not as much as Tom Bombadil resembling the Jack in the Green, for instance. No, Radagast's attitude is because of his alignment and alliances in Valinor. His affinity for the greenwood and animals is because he is a Maiaric disciple of Yavanna.

When you hang with Yavanna
Friend, make no mistake
It's the flora and fauna
You must not forsake

[Bêthberry]

But Radagast's attitude towards nature has no direct precedent in folklore, really, not as much as Tom Bombadil resembling the Jack in the Green, for instance. No, Radagast's attitude is because of his alignment and alliances in Valinor. His affinity for the greenwood and animals is because he is a Maiaric disciple of Yavanna.

When you hang with Yavanna
Friend, make no mistake
It's the flora and fauna
You must not forsake

Of course I know that Radagast "belongs" to Yavanna. My question is really a larger, more philosophical one.

Why is it that this affinity with the natural world is seen as a weakness or failing? Why does it have to be the natural world that is Radagast's link to the Valar? (Yes, I know that the Blue Wizards have their affinities, but they don't figure much in the tales.)

Is there some implication that such dedication to the birds of Arda and the trees is somehow a lesser act and that dedication to the marred is somehow a sign of failure or is doomed to failure?

[Boromir88]

Why is it that this affinity with the natural world is seen as a weakness or failing? Why does it have to be the natural world that is Radagast's link to the Valar? (Yes, I know that the Blue Wizards have their affinities, but they don't figure much in the tales.)


I don't think it's necessarily his affinity to nature that is his failing (at least in respects to the books)...with the movies who knows what Jackson was thinking. He saw an opportunity at a bit of artistic license with the character, and he decided to go with a standard archetype of the socially awkward, probably strung out on hallucinogenic mushrooms, hermit. I do have to admit here, I don't expect well written characters from Jackson's movies, he writes characters into archetypes and I've come to expect nothing more from his characters.

But, it's not so much Radagast's affinity to nature that is his weakness. In Saruman's mind, I think that's how he looks down on Radagast, but he also looks down on Gandalf's "childish toys" and interest in hobbits. Saruman is a high-brow prude who rarely hides his arrogance. Gandalf, however, does note Radagast's worthiness as a wizard with his knowledge of herb lore and animals.

Radagast's weakness comes down purely to his apathy and complacency in his mission to strengthen resistance against Sauron. I believe as Galin quoted earlier in the thread, Radagast didn't have much courage, and this can be seen when he tells Gandalf about the Nazgul and Gandalf notes that he races off as if the Nazgul were on his tail. Also, he was more of a friend and confidant to birds and animals, not exactly a "Steward" in charge of care-taking. I use Steward here in the same way Gandalf does when he tells Denethor in ROTK he too is a "Steward." A steward in the sense of a care-taker, or shephard. It's said that Gandalf had more respect amongst animals than Radagast:

'it is clear that Gandalf (with greater insight and compassion) had in fact more knowledge of birds and beasts than Radagast, and was regarded by them with more respect and affection'

This is from Hammand and Scull's LOTR Companion, in Tolkien Papers - "Radagast the Fool."

When we think about Gandalf he's a character always in motion. There is never a place that he seems to stay at for long, not become static in a dwelling (Saruman in Isengard, Radagast in Rhosgobel). And he's always travelling over Middle-earth to strengthen and tirelessly make sure there is resistance against Sauron. His approach is one mostly on the the peoples of Middle-earth, but he obviously had the respect from Gwaihir and the eagles. And Treebeard feels he's the only wizard who really cares about "growing things."

Radagast on the other hand, is just too complacent and static. He would have a different approach than Gandalf, being associated with Yavanna and his love for nature and animals. I would bet if Radagast, had been a tireless "wanderer" like Gandalf, and did his best to strengthen the resistance in Middle-earth's beasts and in the earth itself (I mean, there is strength within the earth itself, as evidenced with Saruman overlooks the Ents), then he probably too would have succeeded in the Istari mission. For Sauron also had many birds and beasts in his service, and had Radagast done more to counter Sauron's own influence in the animal/nature realm, but he does not...and that is how Radagast fails.

[Morthoron]

Of course I know that Radagast "belongs" to Yavanna. My question is really a larger, more philosophical one.

Why is it that this affinity with the natural world is seen as a weakness or failing? Why does it have to be the natural world that is Radagast's link to the Valar? (Yes, I know that the Blue Wizards have their affinities, but they don't figure much in the tales.)

Is there some implication that such dedication to the birds of Arda and the trees is somehow a lesser act and that dedication to the marred is somehow a sign of failure or is doomed to failure?

Radagast's mission wasn't to commune with the birds and bees, it was, with the other Istari, to unite the foes of the One Enemy; therefore, like Saruman and the Blue Wizards, he failed completely. His failure may be seen as benign when compared to the malignant intent of Saruman, but he strayed from the objective. He went native, I guess.

[cellurdur]

Radagast's mission wasn't to commune with the birds and bees, it was, with the other Istari, to unite the foes of the One Enemy; therefore, like Saruman and the Blue Wizards, he failed completely. His failure may be seen as benign when compared to the malignant intent of Saruman, but he strayed from the objective. He went native, I guess.

I would not be so quick to call the Blue Wizards failures. I think given the evidence it is more likely that they succeeded. Tolkien indicates there is a chance they managed to lead successful rebellions in the East. Considering Sauron had most of the world at his command, this does seem more likely. Whether they fail into evil afterwards or their followers did is a possibility.

[Rhod the Red]

Radagast's mission wasn't to commune with the birds and bees

Tolkein wrote a brief insight to the council of the Valar that we can look at. "each Istar were chosen by each Valar for his innate characteristics", which points to awareness of what style of efforts each Istar would make and lives they would lead. It implies Yavanna chose Aiwendil (Radagast) because of his love of wild creatures, whioch no doubt helped in the cause against the Dark Powers.

Tolkein gets grey over time after his initial writing of him. So it's sort of speculative whether he outright 'failed'.

In the books we only have Saruman pouring scorn over him (even when he follows Saruman's & Gandalf's orders precisely), no one else does. Gandalf is very praiseworthy of him (my emphasis).

Radagast is, of course, a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue; and he has much lore of herbs and beasts, and birds are especially his friends.

The conclusion of a section of the Tolkein Gateway page on him mirriors my conclusion. That he plays an obscure role in the battle against the Dark Powers, not a lazy one.

[Boromir88]

I would not be so quick to call the Blue Wizards failures. I think given the evidence it is more likely that they succeeded. Tolkien indicates there is a chance they managed to lead successful rebellions in the East. Considering Sauron had most of the world at his command, this does seem more likely. Whether they fail into evil afterwards or their followers did is a possibility.

Those are in his late writings which doesn't mesh well with the Lord of the Rings timeline, placing all the Istari arriving in the Third Age. In the later writings with the Blue Wizards Tolkien says they must have had an influence in curtailing Sauron's forces in both the 2nd and 3rd ages. Morthoron's statement about the Blue Wizards failing is consistant with the Lord of the Rings, and thus I don't see anything wrong with saying they too failed.


Tolkein gets grey over time after his initial writing of him. So it's sort of speculative whether he outright 'failed'.


Well, as discussed in Hookbill's "No Redemption" thread with regards to Radagast, "failing" and "falling" are not always the same. Saruman both failed (the Istari mission) and had the "fall" in the sense that he adopted Sauron's worldview. He became evil, desired the One Ring, and fancied himself as one who could Rule over the "weak or idle" peoples.

Radagast did not fall to evil, but he still failed. The task of the Istari was clear, unite and rally resistance to defeat Sauron and Radagast did not do this. He became apathetic and complacent as discussed above. Of course he always worked with good intentions, but he was not in Middle-earth doing what he was supposed to be doing. And honestly, I think Radagast could care less if he was allowed back to Valinor after the defeat of Sauron. As fond of the birds, animals, and nature of Middle-earth as he became, he was likely content staying put.

[Mithalwen]

I have just read the Radagast section of the Medwed chapter of Rateliff's Mr Baggins. It does highlight the problems with the character and so perhaps explain why there are such differing opinions though different intdrpretations of failure is also a factor. He points out that Radagast is a rare loose end and that Tolkien in retrospect felt he hadn't failed exactly more that Gandalf had transcended his mission. Anyway well worth a read but which bit of writing has precedence will no doubt lead to the mighty canonicity thread that I still am awed by after all these years.

[Lalwendë]

I wonder....perhaps Jackson chooses to portray Radagast in this way as some means of making up for the loss of Tom Bombadil. That essential part of Middle-earth, the spirit of the wildwoods and of the land itself, has been completely missing so far. The Elves can't provide that element as they are not 'of' Middle-earth, and the Ents can't provide it, certainly not in Jackson's creation as he chose to make them more like trees and less like giants. To have any 'picture' of Middle-earth without the wild spirit is to have a picture that's not complete.

And, had Jackson not been so stupid as to excise Tom Bombadil from the original films, then the Radagast we get in The Hobbit might not have been so jarring to some viewers.

Now for a detour into some wild territory...I was reading a novel last night where a character makes use of Tarot cards and it got me thinking how Radagast reminds me of The Fool (and Tom Bombadil does, too). He is a loner, wild and free, existing in an almost liminal state and literally mindless of any of the restrictions that society places on appearance and behaviour. The wikipedia page is as good as any if you are not familiar with the Major Arcana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fool_%28Tarot_card%29) and makes a note that in very early decks, The Fool was often portrayed like a tramp with raggedy clothes and feathers in his hair. Very much like Radagast in the film.

Which goes back to what Boro says about Jackson making use of archetypes. Actually, given that Radagast is such a slippery character for even very keen readers to get a handle on, is it any wonder Jackson has gone back to an archetype?

[Boromir88]

And, had Jackson not been so stupid as to excise Tom Bombadil from the original films, then the Radagast we get in The Hobbit might not have been so jarring to some viewers.

I had Bombadil in mind too, from something Galdor said at The Council of Elrond:

'I know little of Iarwain save the name,' said Galdor; 'but Glorfindel, I think, is right. Power to defy our Enemy is not in him, unless such power is in the earth itself. And yet we see that Sauron can torture and destroy the very hills....'

So you might be on to something about Radagast filling in for Bombadil being cut from LOTR. And having Radagast also represent the "wild spirit" of the land itself.

Which goes back to what Boro says about Jackson making use of archetypes. Actually, given that Radagast is such a slippery character for even very keen readers to get a handle on, is it any wonder Jackson has gone back to an archetype?

Now that's interesting. There is very little about Radagast, for sure. His meeting with Gandalf we can tell he's definitely disturbed by carrying the news about the Nazgul:

"I have an urgent errand," he said. "My news is evil." Then he looked about him, as if the hedges might have ears. "Nazgul," he whispered..."~ibid

Nervous? Anxious? Whatever it is, he's bothered the message he has to give to Gandalf.

"Then you must go now,...I myself shall turn back at once." And with that he mounted and would have ridden straight off.
...
"I will do that," he said, and rode off as if the Nine were after him."~ibid

Radagast is going to race right off (and we assume perhaps back to Rhosgobel when he says he shall "turn back at once"). Gandalf tells him to alert his friends, and he again races off as if the "Nine were after him." This might not tell much, other than Radagast is frightened of the Nazgul, and thus he's probably frightened of Sauron's power as well. Still being a good-intentioned person, and his love for his bird friends is enough to get him to listen to Gandalf, but he doesn't have much courage.

The other things that can be picked up about Radagast comes from Gandalf and Saruman. You can often learn things about a character from what other characters say about him/her. The problem is, what other characters say must be measured with some perspective and the biases of the character "reporting."

First, Gandalf:

"Radagast is, of course, a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue; and he has much lore of herbs and beasts, and birds are especially his friend."

I don't doubt Gandalf's words here, because he's an honest and reliable character for the reader to glean information from. However, we also know his extreme humility, he often underestimates his own power, and in doing so he's able to keep his own pride and ego in check. Is it possible, Gandalf just didn't want to bad-mouth someone he would view as a friend, a colleague? I think so. He would be speaking true about Radagast's expertise and knowledge, but Gandalf isn't someone who scoffs at, mocks, or trashes the abilities of other characters, especially if he views them as a friend.

Saruman, is the exact opposite:

Radagast the Brown!" laughed Saruman, and he no longer concealed his scorn. "Radagast the Bird-tamer! Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool! Yet he has just the wit to play the part that I set him."

Saruman is of course, a liar and a traitor, and he rarely hides his disdain for Gandalf's "toys"...he mocks Gandalf for smoking pipe-weed, he mocks Gandalf's fondness of the Shire and hobbits. He mocks Radagast's worthiness as a wizard. (It just so happens that nearly everything Saruman mocks comes back to bite him in the end :p).

Still, there is probably truth to Saruman's scorn for Radagast here. Saruman played him, there's no other way around it, he deceived Radagast and got him to send Gandalf to Orthanc, completely unawares of Saruman's treachery. The weak thread Saruman left was not anticipating Gandalf would tell Radagast to alert his friends, and thus not planning for the fooled Radagast still being an honest wizard. An honest wizard he is, but "a Fool" he might be too...there's no reason there can't be a bit of truth to how both Gandalf and Saruman describe Radagast.

I think with the characterization in the films, most seem to be strictly looking at Gandalf's words and determining Jackson got it so obviously wrong, because Radagast was a "worthy wizard." But as slight as the evidence is, this overlooks the "other half," that comes from Saruman. And simply because he's turned completely evil, does not mean he is automatically wrong. ;)

I have just read the Radagast section of the Medwed chapter of Rateliff's Mr Baggins. It does highlight the problems with the character and so perhaps explain why there are such differing opinions though different intdrpretations of failure is also a factor. He points out that Radagast is a rare loose end and that Tolkien in retrospect felt he hadn't failed exactly more that Gandalf had transcended his mission. Anyway well worth a read but which bit of writing has precedence will no doubt lead to the mighty canonicity thread that I still am awed by after all these years.

In Rateliff's review of the movie, he notes the humor in having Radagast just drop out of the film and disappear, as he does in LOTR. Although, I think we'll be seeing more Radagast in the other films, so I am interested to see what they do with him...or how they explain what winds up happening to Radagast. Even if it is personally funny and fitting to just have him disappear completely.

[Ulvenok]

Before I saw the hobbit I always thought Radagast would just appear when the white council confronted the necromancer or chased him out of Dol Guldur. That would be in movie two with maybe him also appearing at the white council meetings. How Jackson chose to use this character, it's beyond words what an insult this is to Tolkien. The character is being treated as a joke when he is one of the istari.

They should have made him a quiet solitary wizard instead, not a crazy weed smoking mushroom man. Well the entire movie was a joke except the Gollum scene and that conversation Galadriel and Gandalf have on Bilbo. And also maybe some of the scenes at bag end were good.

Anyway the Radagast that is seen in the movie won't stick with me, he is just not like that at all. :smokin:

[cellurdur]

Those are in his late writings which doesn't mesh well with the Lord of the Rings timeline, placing all the Istari arriving in the Third Age. In the later writings with the Blue Wizards Tolkien says they must have had an influence in curtailing Sauron's forces in both the 2nd and 3rd ages. Morthoron's statement about the Blue Wizards failing is consistant with the Lord of the Rings, and thus I don't see anything wrong with saying they too failed.


This is where we disagree. Sauron had control of virtually the entire world. The fact that he could not mobilise his forces as quickly or as many as would be expected indicates something was holding him back. It would make sense if he was having trouble in the East and had to divert some of his attention there.

Even if we keep the account in LOTR that they all arrived in the 3rd Age it does not mean the Blue Wizards should not have played their part.

Gondor was a shadow of what it was in it's glory. I think it's Imrahil, who says the Gondor Vanguard was around 8,000 in it's pomp. Sauron had the strength to overrun Gondor at it's height; when it had great technology, a much bigger army and better soldiers. In the War of the Ring it appears he could not muster forces even as great as in the Last Alliance let alone earlier on in the Second Age. Something must have been holding him back and this was probably the Blue Wizards.

[Rhod the Red]

Is it possible, Gandalf just didn't want to bad-mouth someone he would view as a friend, a colleague?

He was willing to badmouth his own superior, Saruman, both to Frodo & at the Council of Elrond (a public dissing). His restraint from criticism wasn't 100%.

[Boromir88]

He was willing to badmouth his own superior, Saruman, both to Frodo & at the Council of Elrond (a public dissing). His restraint from criticism wasn't 100%.

By that time though Saruman was a revealed traitor and kept Gandalf imprisoned on Orthanc...I can't imagine Gandalf had viewed Saruman as a friend. Yet he still shows regard for Saruman as a powerful wizard whose designs drove Sauron out of Dol Guldur.

[Rhod the Red]

He hasn't been imprisoned in the Shadow of the Past chapter. That's later, and Saruman was still head of the Order in the War of the Ring

[Rhod the Red]

he is just not like that at all

We know next to nothing about him, certainly nothing about his private life. Two wizards are portrayed in having private lives that included smoking, how do you know he wouldn't do the same thing?

[Morthoron]

This is where we disagree. Sauron had control of virtually the entire world. The fact that he could not mobilise his forces as quickly or as many as would be expected indicates something was holding him back. It would make sense if he was having trouble in the East and had to divert some of his attention there.

Even if we keep the account in LOTR that they all arrived in the 3rd Age it does not mean the Blue Wizards should not have played their part.

Gondor was a shadow of what it was in it's glory. I think it's Imrahil, who says the Gondor Vanguard was around 8,000 in it's pomp. Sauron had the strength to overrun Gondor at it's height; when it had great technology, a much bigger army and better soldiers. In the War of the Ring it appears he could not muster forces even as great as in the Last Alliance let alone earlier on in the Second Age. Something must have been holding him back and this was probably the Blue Wizards.

That would all depend on which text you wish to believe. In his letters, Tolkien speculated on their failure:

I really do not know anything clearly about the other two [the Blue Wizards, Alatar and Pallando ] I think they went as emissaries to distant regions, East and South, far out of Númenorian range. What success they had I do not know ; but I fear that they failed, as Saruman did, though doubtless in different ways; and I suspect they were founders of or beginners of secret cults and "magic" traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron.

Sauron was certainly strong enough to unleash an eastern legion against Dale and Erebor, and also came with strength against Galadriel and Thranduil. He had an incredibly huge army of reserves waiting at the Morannon to face the Captains of the West. Had the ring not been destroyed, had Frodo not been bitten by Gollum after he claimed the Ring, had the Nazgul returned in triumph to Barad-dur with the Ring in their grasp and Frodo their prisoner, Aragorn's little army would have been annihilated and the West would have been utterly destroyed. I don't see much help from the Blue Wizards, given these circumstances. Conjecture is fun, but the facts dictate that the fate of the West rested totally with the destruction of the Ring at that precise moment.

[Boromir88]

He hasn't been imprisoned in the Shadow of the Past chapter. That's later, and Saruman was still head of the Order in the War of the Ring

I'm sorry, I still have no idea what you're referring too...some help?

I haven't come across anything to say Gandalf was disrespecting Saruman's power or standing/worthiness as head of the Istari and the White Council. Even when Gandalf is clearly more powerful and breaks Saruman's staff, Gandalf believes Saruman still has power left in Orthanc. Once Gandalf knows Saruman is a traitor, he obviously blows the lid on Saruman's betrayal, but he's not disrespecting Saruman by telling the Council of his treachery.

The only moment that comes to mind is in Unfinished Tales when Gandalf blows the smoke rings to mock Saruman's scolding that Gandalf should not be dallying with his childish toys when there are great matters being discussed. But this is a private statement made by Gandalf to Saruman, that his study into the Rings of Power is dangerous, not disrespect towards Saruman's worthiness as a wizard nor being his superior.

[Rhod the Red]

I haven't come across anything to say Gandalf was disrespecting Saruman's power or standing/worthiness as head of the Istari and the White Council.

He did in Shadow of the Past to Frodo.

[Mithalwen]

Gandalf acknowledges Saruman's lore, power and seniority but comments that he has grown proud and disikes interference in his sphere. Gandalf says that Bilbo's behaviour didn't tally with Saruman's assurances. Then the ring is shown to be the One which proves Saruman wrong and it is in that context that Gandalf speaks of an earlier time when he still trusted Saruman.

Is having doubts about someone being right who is then shown to be wrong on that matter disrespectful? He doesn't express himself disrespectfully , but if Saruman is the sort of leader who is still right when he is wrong then Gandalf could be described as disrespectful but I think it is a stretch.

[Boromir88]

Gandalf acknowledges Saruman's lore, power and seniority but comments that he has grown proud and disikes interference in his sphere. Gandalf says that Bilbo's behaviour didn't tally with Saruman's assurances. Then the ring is shown to be the One which proves Saruman wrong and it is in that context that Gandalf speaks of an earlier time when he still trusted Saruman.

Is having doubts about someone being right who is then shown to be wrong on that matter disrespectful? He doesn't express himself disrespectfully , but if Saruman is the sort of leader who is still right when he is wrong then Gandalf could be described as disrespectful but I think it is a stretch.

Ok, that makes sense now, thanks.

Mainly I wanted to make the argument, as slight as the information, we can learn about Radagast's character based on what other characters say about him. So, Gandalf and Saruman.

I think after An Unexpected Journey too many saw an over the top, eccentric, socially awkward fool, thinking this wasn't Radagast at all. His appearance and the bird crap is too ridiculous for me, but I don't think it was a bad route to show Radagast as a wizard not up to Saruman's nobility, nor Gandalf's wisdom. Someone may read Gandalf's "Radagast is a worthy wizard" and decide Jackson got it all wrong. How is a stuttering, eccentric hermit a "worthy wizard?" But Gandalf would have no reason to speak poorly of Radagast, nor disrepsect him, especially considering Radagast as a friend. It fits Gandalf's character, because he is extremely humble. So, while he's speaking true about Radagast's worth, as a wizard, it doesn't mean it's the full picture on Radagast, considering Gandalf would have no reason to speak disrespectfully about a friend.

Saruman has no respect towards Radagast, and he's a liar who became a mimic of Sauron. However, it doesn't mean what he says about Radagast is wholly untrue. So, I don't think it was a wrong decision to blend the two wizards' opinions of Radagast together. To show not only Radagast's knowledge and worth in the nature realm, but to also get the visualisation of why Saruman had little respect for him.

I actually think what Gandalf says about Saruman in Shadow of the Past is further sign of his respect for Saruman's knowledge and authority. Saruman is able to convince Gandalf that his misgivings Bilbo might have the One Ring is wrong for a period of time. Gandalf puts aside the matter of Bilbo's ring based on Saruman's information, and it's not until it's abundantly clear in the Shadow of the Past that Saruman's information was wrong. I would agree, this is a stretch to say Gandalf was disrespecting Saruman's worth and authority.

[Rhod the Red]

Gandalf puts aside the matter of Bilbo's ring based on Saruman's information

Not just that, but also because of Bilbo's bloodline.

[Mithalwen]

I actually think what Gandalf says about Saruman in Shadow of the Past is further sign of his respect for Saruman's knowledge and authority. Saruman is able to convince Gandalf that his misgivings Bilbo might have the One Ring is wrong for a period of time. Gandalf puts aside the matter of Bilbo's ring based on Saruman's information, and it's not until it's abundantly clear in the Shadow of the Past that Saruman's information was wrong. I would agree, this is a stretch to say Gandalf was disrespecting Saruman's worth and authority.

Yes and I get the feeling that Gandalf blames Saruman giving bad advice on his pride raather than on a lack of knowledgww nor ulterior motive in the circumstances it is giving him the benefit of the doubt almost. A mistake as it happens. He may have thought his reluctance to confide in Saruman aa a reluctance to challenge his superior.

[Lalwendë]

I think after An Unexpected Journey too many saw an over the top, eccentric, socially awkward fool, thinking this wasn't Radagast at all. His appearance and the bird crap is too ridiculous for me, but I don't think it was a bad route to show Radagast as a wizard not up to Saruman's nobility, nor Gandalf's wisdom. Someone may read Gandalf's "Radagast is a worthy wizard" and decide Jackson got it all wrong. How is a stuttering, eccentric hermit a "worthy wizard?" But Gandalf would have no reason to speak poorly of Radagast, nor disrepsect him, especially considering Radagast as a friend. It fits Gandalf's character, because he is extremely humble. So, while he's speaking true about Radagast's worth, as a wizard, it doesn't mean it's the full picture on Radagast, considering Gandalf would have no reason to speak disrespectfully about a friend.

Very well said, I haven't really thought about how both Gandalf and Saruman would obviously have very different opinions on Radagast. And the truth lies somewhere in between.

Of course, we may read the term 'worthy' differently to Gandalf. To him, a worthy wizard might simply mean one who acts with the best intentions or uses his skill in a kindly way. While 'worthy' to a modern reader may mean something very different - I've heard it used in reference to people high up in society's hierarchy as well as in reference to great humanitarians, neither of which would fit with Radagast, in either film or books.

[Sarumian]

Very well said, I haven't really thought about how both Gandalf and Saruman would obviously have very different opinions on Radagast. And the truth lies somewhere in between.

Of course, we may read the term 'worthy' differently to Gandalf. To him, a worthy wizard might simply mean one who acts with the best intentions or uses his skill in a kindly way. While 'worthy' to a modern reader may mean something very different - I've heard it used in reference to people high up in society's hierarchy as well as in reference to great humanitarians, neither of which would fit with Radagast, in either film or books.

I also liked Boro's view on PJ's Radagast. He is rather different from the wizard in the LoTR but there he makes such a brief appearance that I don't really mind an 'invented' wizard for The Hobbit. In the movie he is so strange that it is difficult to take him seriously, however, Gandalf treats him with respect and is quite right. That mirrors the situation of Bilbo himself - dwarves don't see him worthy but Gandalf can see why they might need him.

[Rhod the Red]

He's like the Fourth Doctor in Doctor Who; "the keen mind, the powerful, the dominant personality under that flamboyant exterior. There was obviously far more to him than met the eye." - The Robot, pg 38.

[Ulvenok]

He is a bit Tom Bombadilish yet has no reason to be, because as seen when he walks into Dol Guldur and later runs away, he is not much of a wizard. At least not in the movie. It'd be nicer if he was an old silent man with a little bird at his shoulder, remote unconcerned and when speaking to Gandalf he had his eyes fixed on his bird that he was feeding.

Instead of this bumbling obnoxious buffon that is being pulled around by rabbits. Silly and stupid...

[Rhod the Red]

He didn't leave empty handed, he managed to snag a relic and then ran. Why stay and fight?