[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Even without giving Radagast's failure the "excuse" of Yavanna's special instructions, I wouldn't see him as being in need of repentance. He seems to have made no conscious decision to distance himself from his primary task, and his actions could not necessarily be construed as harmful to Middle-earth or its denizens, in sharp contrast to Saruman.

No, of course not, and I think that much has been very well said already by, I believe it was Hookbill, above: Radagast did not "fall", he did simply "fail". He did not break the glass, he simply failed to fill it, to speak metaphorically. (In such a case, Gandalf alone had managed to fill the glass, while Saruman - how appropriate - broke it; I am not sure what is the status of the Blue in this respect, but Tolkien seemed not to know either, from what we are told - as someone also had cited earlier in this thread.)

But I still argue for this fact that Radagast had a specific mission, which was the same for all the Istari, to help the denizens of Middle-Earth against Sauron, and in Radagast's case, it was specifically with the assumption that he would take special care to protect the nature against Sauron.

If I exaggerate a bit, in order to show how I envision Radagast's ideal behavior, in the ideal state where neither of the Wizards had failed, Radagast would have roused the Woodmen and the Pukel-Men and the fiercest bears and badgers in order to make them defend their homelands. While Saruman and Gandalf would encourage Elves and Men to resist Orcs from the mountains and armies of Mordor, and the Blue Wizards would "enlighten" the Easterlings and make them strong enough to resist the Dark Lord's temptation of their chieftains, then Radagast would counsel and rouse the wildlife of Mirkwood to get rid of the spiders and all sorts of evil things, probably also prevent Ents and huorns to turn to having "black hearts" like Old Man Willow and somesuch.

Originally Posted by Inzil

The UT essay makes it clear that the Istari were especially vulnerable to such failings because of their "real" bodies, which subjected them to all temptations and trials of lesser beings. That obviously was no excuse for Saruman's deeds, but in the case of Radagast, I still wonder if his distraction might not have been merely an accepted foregone possibility, if not an expressed order from Yavanna.

Given that he "failed", it obviously wasn't. He simply failed, in a similar manner to Saruman - I mean: before Saruman turned to evil (started building his own empire, desired the Ring, made his own Orcs), he also, firstly, only "failed" in the similar way. The first step was, he had only locked himself up in Isengard and started studying the arts of craft, ring-lore, knowledge of the Enemy etc. That was basically in line with his original mission - but the problem was, he ceased to use the knowledge for the good of the Free Peoples, but kept it only to himself. That is technically the same thing that Radagast fell into, not using his contact with the nature in some constructive way to oppose the Dark Lord, but simply playing with the animals and not doing anything else. I don't know how much more clear can I express myself...

Originally Posted by Inzil

Indeed the Istari and their varied gifts do seem intended to counter-balance one another. Again though, given the very nature of the way the Istari were clothed in real flesh, I would think the Valar should have known it was unlikely to work out that way in practice.

How well are Valar able to predict or manage things is disputable in the light of e.g. the battle of Utumno which they themselves considered a bad thing in retrospect (though they seem to have learned and "developed" throughout the later Ages). But I think they just had a certain concept, an ideal picture of how things might work if they worked all right, and they did their best. I think the Valar saw it possible that the Istari, as they were, all of them, would succeed, otherwise they would not have sent them in the first place! Such "games beyond games" are seemingly reserved for the omniscient Eru, who seemingly had known about e.g. Frodo's final decision to claim the Ring at Mount Doom, yet made it part of his plan. But the Valar have their own devices, and they use them as well as they can - because they are not omniscient, especially in regards to the future (it is said in Ainulindalë that the Valar did not see many of the things, especially of the later Ages, in their vision of Arda in the beginning). That way, they would simply choose the best among their Maiar whom they could trust well enough that they will do their job. Their failure to predict the Istari's failure is in no way different from the failure of e.g. Elrond to predict that Boromir will try to take Frodo's Ring. I think it comes with the trust in people (or Maiar in human form).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There's been many an interesting post between this one of Hook's and mine, but I thought it might be helpful to consider the fact that Frodo, too, failed to complete his mission. He was unable to destroy the Ring. But if memory serves me well, Tolkien in a letter argues that Frodo was able to bring about conditions that allowed for the destruction of the Ring.

Perhaps Radagast's behaviour can be considered in this way: how did his actions (or inactions) enable ultimate victory over Sauron?

Interesting idea. I would just like to point out - to potential other readers - that this is a different kind of question than the one I am arguing above. In other words: perhaps Radagast's failure has been accounted for from the start in Eru's plan, but certainly not in Yavanna's. So: the idea was not "you shall go to Middle-Earth and fail" (just like nobody told Frodo to go to Mount Doom and claim the Ring there!), but the idea was "you shall go... and do your best". I think in the beginning, all the Wizards had the intention to do their best, just like Frodo.

I think, however, that - at least from what we are told (but we are not told much! The Mirkwood/Radagast/animal relations to Sauron/similar areas are not very much accounted for in the tales, are they...) - Radagast's contribution to the victory was only in the things where he had stayed true to his quest, i.e. things he would have done anyway. For example: sending Gwaihir to Orthanc. It was something he was in fact obliged to do by his mission, and he did it. He probably did a few similar things throughout the years - I can e.g. imagine he might have provided some scouting of the area before the assault of Dol Guldur. Things like that.

I can think of some random nice things, too. For example, how can we know that it was not because of him that Beorn had accepted Gandalf so happily (in the end) to his dwelling? Perhaps he would have acted differently had Gandalf not mentioned his "good cousin Radagast" So, in that way, perhaps the Dwarves would have had no place to resupply, would have had to take some much tougher route, where either they would perish without Gandalf, and the Ring would be lost in some Orc cave again, or had they journeyed south, captured and taken to Dol Guldur (!), or maybe Gandalf would have had to continue accompanying the poor Dwarves, which would have prevented him from attacking Dol Guldur, and that might also have shifted the balance... Possibilities, as always, are endless