Quote:
Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc
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...
|
I understand your point. Mine is that the
intentions, as well as the end result of the actions of the "fallen" might be a factor. Do we really hold Radagast to the same level of culpability as Saruman? The former, apparently through an innate attraction to nature, got caught up in the fascinations of fauna and got sidetracked. The latter became envious of Sauron and desired to supplant him and rule Middle-earth. It could be argued that Saruman had in his being a certain affinity, in his case for machinery and whatnot, and things made by hands. Yet, what we see to differentiate the two is the manner in which their "distractions" led them astray, and the ends thereof. We don't see Gandalf feeling the need to hunt down Radagast and break
his staff. Gandalf let Radagast's "misdeeds", if one can call them so, go. There must be a reason for that.