Good and evil

[Boromir88]

Legate, I'm glad you brought up Radagast. It reminds me of what well-respected politician once said (and I'll keep it an unnamed politician to avoid any sort of political discussion ). Anyway he said:

'When good people sit back and watch evil happen; that is the greatest evil of all.'

It reminds me of Radagast, because as Tolkien remarks Radagast had always stayed 'good-willed'...and it is because of Radagast's good will that he is able to help at Gandalf:

But since he remained of good will (though he had not much courage) , his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments.~Hammond and Scull's LOTR Companion (taken from Tolkien's Papers; Bodleian Library - Radagast the Fool)

Radagast always remained good and I think it's echoed in Gandalf's words that it would have been useless for Saruman to try and 'win over the honest Radagast to treachery' (The Council of Elrond).

The failure of Radagast must therefor be that he isn't 'evil,' he still fails, but it's a different failure from Saruman's. Radagast fails precisely because of his 'idleness.' He becomes fond of the birds, beasts, and plants of Middle-earth and starts neglecting the very reason he was sent to Middle-earth:

"Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful, and he was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures."~UT; The Istari

Radagast gave up and pretty much said 'forget you Elves and Men.' When as I think Gandalf points out not only for himself, but the task for all the Istari (note Gandalf says he is 'a steward' not 'the steward.') was to care for everything that 'lies in peril.' And to especially guide the resistance of Elves and Men against Sauron. Radagast does not do this and that is where he fails. That is also where I agree he is not a good figure of 'ultimate good,' eventhough Radagast always remained good.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

You precisely elaborated on what I had in mind about old Radagast.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The failure of Radagast must therefor be that he isn't 'evil,' he still fails, but it's a different failure from Saruman's. Radagast fails precisely because of his 'idleness.' He becomes fond of the birds, beasts, and plants of Middle-earth and starts neglecting the very reason he was sent to Middle-earth

I would only note one thing. Someone may take it like that Radagast was actually doing something good: that he was caring of the animals instead, someone could say "Hey, and so what? Everyone cared of the people, but Radagast cared of the nature, he was a 'Good Greenpeace Guy'." But the point lies in that a) he was not actually much active (from what we know), he was just fond of beasts and plants, and mainly, it was more like being idle - a hobby, nothing more. He would of course care of those he liked, if for example Orcs attacked them, he will probably protect them - but nothing widespread, he did not wander the Middle-Earth and make animal reservations or something like that. It was not even his job to do so. Even if he did that, it will be - well, yes - procrastinating And that's b) he was just idle, collecting bugs or with similar hobbies, but doing nothing really constructive. Though, it is said (UT) Yavanna probably talked Saruman to take him so that even the animals and plants are cared about, but it was not the main reason... it would sort of crystalize itself if all the Istari did all what they were sent for; they would make a harmonic whole.
Imagine it: the White Council, and (good) Saruman comes with an idea of defeating Sauron with the use of force by making all these forges at Isengard and everything... and Radagast is there, as is his job, and warns him that he can't just do it, that he will disturb the Ents. Bingo! And the Wise sit and think of something else...

[Boromir88]

a) he was not actually much active (from what we know), he was just fond of beasts and plants~Legate

Interesting you say this, as I think you have a point. Also from Hammond and Scull's LOTR Companion Tolkien writes:

'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'

I was wondering about this because afterall 'birds and beasts' are supposed to be Radagast's specialty here. Yet, Gandalf knew more about them and got more respect from them then did Radagast. Why's that? As you point out all it really was, is Radagast was 'fond' of the birds and beasts and Gandalf tells Radagast to warn his 'friends.' But, I think when we see the interaction between Gandalf and Gwaihir we see the great respect Gwaihir has for Gandalf.

First off, Gwaihir rescues Gandalf from Orthanc. All Gwaihir was sent for was to act as a messenger, he wasn't expecting to have a passenger, yet because of his respect for Gandalf he gets him off Orthanc:

"How far can you bear me?" I said to Gwaihir.
"Many leages," said he, "but not to the ends of the earth. I was sent to bear tidings not burdens."~The Council of Elrond

Then later when Gwaihir fetches Gandalf off Zirak-Zigil:

"Ever am I fated to be your burden, friend at need," I said.
"A burden you have been," he answered, "but not so now. Light as a swan's feather in my claw you are. The Sun shines through you. Indeed I do not think you need me any more: were I to let you fall, you would float upon the wind."~The White Rider

And finally to rescue Frodo:

'Twice you have borne me, Gwaihir my friend,' said Gandalf. 'Thrice shall pay for all, if you are willing. You will not find me a burden much greater than when you bore me from Zirakzigil, where my old life burned away.'
'I would bear you,' answered Gwaihir, 'whither you will, even were you made of stone.'~Field of Cormallen

Eventhough we never see Radagast interacting with the animals he is 'fond' of. I think we do see what he meant that Gandalf did know more about the 'birds and beasts' than Radagast's did, and he had more respect from them. As we see a long list of one rescuing the other (though Gwaihir's list of rescuing Gandalf is much longer! ).

And we can kind of see that whitty friendly banter going on, with Gwaihir calling Gandalf a 'burden.' However, it all ends with Gwaihir saying 'I would will bear you wherever even were you made of stone.' What a happy ending.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Even though we never see Radagast interacting with the animals he is 'fond' of. I think we do see what he meant that Gandalf did know more about the 'birds and beasts' than Radagast's did, and he had more respect from them. As we see a long list of one rescuing the other (though Gwaihir's list of rescuing Gandalf is much longer! ).

Is it that Gandalf's knowledge comes from a more active research than the suspected more passivity of Radagast? Note that Gandalf somewhat aggressively goes searching for knowledge (i.e. Hobbits); did Radagast observe just those flora and fauna that were outside his window?

And, concerning the failure of Radagast, he erred as in the Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

It's not that the Brown Bomb actively tried to harm anyone, but that, as stated in #1, his inaction resulted in harm. He failed #2 as in not following the original plan, and we know that he would have (or may have) failed #3 as he was terrified of the coming of the Nine. Gandalf was fearful too, and yet he drew some of the Nine off in an effort to help Frodo, Strider etc.

A bad robot Radagast would have made.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is it that Gandalf's knowledge comes from a more active research than the suspected more passivity of Radagast? Note that Gandalf somewhat aggressively goes searching for knowledge (i.e. Hobbits); did Radagast observe just those flora and fauna that were outside his window?

I wouldn't say so. Gandalf shows the best, the "middle point" between Radagast and Saruman. Where Radagast was passive, Saruman was active to that point that he took charge of other beings rather than just aiding them, helping them understand and letting them choose, as Gandalf did. Also, this is that it's not Gandalf who goes "aggressively searching for knowledge", that one is Saruman: yes, aggressively searching for knowledge. Gandalf searches just out of curiosity, or (more often) what he needs: the Scroll of Isildur, for example, he searches for only when he is in need of it (which could be considered even a little setback). But Saruman...

Originally Posted by Elrond's Council

"(...) The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."
"In which case it is no longer white," said I. "And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

Emphasise mine, of course. I think that's one very important thing to consider. Or the same chapter:

Originally Posted by Elrond's Council

"It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill."

As Saruman did this, hungry for knowledge (and so later, for power).

And finaly, we have the testimony of Treebeard:

Originally Posted by Treebeard

[Saruman was] always eager to listen. I told him many things that he would never have found out by himself; but he never repaid me in like kind. I cannot remember that he ever told me anything. And he got more and more like that; his face, as I remember it – I have not seen it for many a day – became like windows in a stone wall: windows with shutters inside.

So I think where Radagast shows passivity, Saruman shows - as alatar said - aggressivity in seeking knowledge; and Gandalf, therefore, presents the "mild middle point", the best alternative.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

So I think where Radagast shows passivity, Saruman shows - as alatar said - aggressivity in seeking knowledge; and Gandalf, therefore, presents the "mild middle point", the best alternative.

You state it much better than I. I thought that the word' aggressively' was too strong, but the alternate - assertively - seemed not right.

A note about Saruman, who you rightly place in the too much pile: In science, there are times that you have to break things to figure out what's going on. Think that what Tolkien meant was research that wasn't carefully done, nor done with any thought or respect or consideration of the means and cost/benefit ratio. If you had one palantir, it would not be wise to cast it into Sammath Naur just to see what happens. You have to step back a moment and ask, "What will I learn, and what price am I willing to pay for that knowledge?" Saruman fooled himself thinking that the price that he payed was small compared to what he learned, but actually it was the reverse. "Can you cross Orc and Man?" may be an interesting question, but just how did Saruman get his subjects and perform the experiments?

Such callousness to the suffering of others eventually did him in.

[tumhalad2]

Personally, I think that there is not necisarilly any absolute 'good' in middle earth, rather Evil and non-Evil. both these are ultimately choices, and the closest that good can come to may be Gandalf, but ultimately, even in Middle-earth, it is to a degree "relitive"-according to circumstance etc. For example, in the story Tal-Elmar, the Numenorians come upon a tribe of natives in (what will become) Gondor, and however sail away with slaves and bounty. Tolkien is showing the reader, first hand, the ability of Men of all sorts, even the great Numenorians, to choose the "Evil" road. 'Non-evil' is therefor a wide ethical spectrum, and as the moral zeitgeist changes, so it does as well. There is no Ethical Standard in Middle earth, ultimately, there is Evil, which is less of a moral thing than a desire for entire nagation of creation, and non evil.