Imagine No Redemption

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

Actually, in circumstances where the tower was an issue (i.e. one where Aragorn decided that Isengard/Orthanc needed to be at least partially rebuilt (it is a major watchtower after all) Radagast might actually be the best all around choice. Anyone residing at Isengard in the 4th age is going to have to deal with having Ents as close neigbors, Ents who 1. Are now well aware of what they can do if someone at Isengard does things they do not care for and 2. now have Royal Legal Title to the whole forest (i.e. if they defend thier rights, the King is more than likey to come in on thier side, not the side of the interlopers.) In short, anyone put in charge of Isengard better be someone the Ents will approve of. And Radagast might easily fit that bill. He is well versed in lore (even a wizard considered "dim" by the standards of his bretheren is probably quite wise by mannish standards) likes solitude, has an avowed interest in doing what such a job would actually majorlly entail (Keeping and Protecting Fangorn) and as Yavanna's emissary, is likey the Wizard dearest at heart to the Children of Yavanna. Treebeard is fond of Gandalf, but I imagine a wizard who has made the preservation of nature his whole life's calling and values it above the affairs of Men and Elves would be truly one Ents would love (Beren likes him, and he sort of half animal).

If only Radagast had sent his résumé to Aragorn!
It would have been nice to know the fate of Radagast, and this sort of job would have been a nice touch. Perhaps he failed to fight Sauron properly, but perhaps the Valar could find new tests for him and the other two. They gave Gandalf a second chance, though those were extraordinary circumstances. However, I'm not sure how Radagast would fair against a Balrog...
(An conversation between Radagast and Treebeard would be very odd indeed, I'm imagining).

Originally Posted by Alfirin

To be gifted with making comes with a belief that you can make better than that which already is, and that pride is an easy one to fall from.

Aule seems to embody this, doesn't he? The episode with the Dwarves is very much a commentary on the idea of sub-creation. At this point we could de-rail and I'd have to get out my copy of 'On-Fairy Stories' and we'll be here for months.
But that may indeed be a point of interest to look into...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I'm wondering if Ragast went native for fear that if he didn't the natural world would be destroyed (either by Alatar and Pallando driving manking to extol in the hunt so greatly they literally hunted ME bare or Saruman (by convincing the people of ME that the natural word held no value outside of raw materials) The intial love would still be Radagasts own nature, but the decison to turn from his path may have been for reasons more complex than simply that.

I think there was no "decision", really. It simply happened. He had simply "forgotten", sort of in the sense "it's not worth the trouble": "I am supposed to go to Isengard to an urgent meeting... uh... but the birds are singing so nicely today, sun is shining, I think I'll just lie down under that oak and dream". Also, I certainly think that he did not go native for the fear for the natural world. If he had such fear, it would be a reason for him to join the cause to oppose the Enemy. And that was his original purpose, I believe, and part of it had still remained in him - he had only grown a bit, well, lax in that.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

However, as I recall other threads here discussing at times, his actions, relating to his apparently being chosen to go along to Middle-earth by Yavanna, as a representative of her interests, could have been foreseen by the Valar.

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I even think it slightly possible that, given how intent Yavanna was in making sure her interests were protectect, Radagast may have been instucted to turn from his path on purpose , to fail his great mission (and give up his chance of returning) intentionally so as to serve the lesser more personal mission that a child of Yavanna would be inclined to, and not to swerve back all the way save at very great need (Say, if Gandalf had fallen permanently (i.e. not come back) and Radagast was literally left as the ONLY Ishtari left to stand against Sauron.)

Originally Posted by Hookbill

The use of 'fully' here is an interesting one. Perhaps Tolkien didn't want to call Radagast a complete failure as he clearly had no ill intent and indeed was willing to help, his biggest failings being trusting the wrong people (though even Gandalf trusted Saruman, so perhaps he is guilty of the same 'mistakes of judgement'), and a shift of priorities to the birds and animals rather than the sentient peoples.

Indeed. But I would even put it differently - I think everyone here thus far failed to see, or misinterpreted the important point that was mentioned: That Radagast was specifically sent by Yavanna to protect her interests. "So what, didn't he fail?" or "Was he supposed to fail?" I think this is completely unnecessary and confusing path to take.

I have always thought it clear: Radagast's purpose, had he succeeded and fulfiled his task, would have been to help the Free Peoples, with special focus on the animals and plants and whatnot. That was why Yavanna had picked him. In other words, he was supposed to be a counterweight to Saruman.

Imagine the ideal bunch of non-fallen Wizards: Gandalf boosts the morale like he always does, Saruman makes the Free People use their creative potential to the best in order to outwit Sauron, while Radagast is there to nudge Saruman and keep him in line in case he started to make grand plans of building ten thousand forges for Gondorian army while using the entire Mirkwood for fuel. Likewise, Saruman, in his ideal place, should have reminded Radagast of his task and stopped him from "going too native".

Also, Radagast would have specifically taken care about the nature while the others would be primarily concerned with Men and Elves and Dwarves and Hobbits - so, while Gandalf et al. would be coming with disturbing rumors of "hey, Sauron's Orcs have descended from the mountains and are killing Woodmen!", Radagast would have also added: "But there are also wargs who are killing poor rabbits by hundreds!" I'm making it sound ridiculous, but Radagast, I believe, was chosen because he was meant to "fight for animal rights" as well as the Free Peoples'.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Interesting notion. Aule wasn't good at having none-evil maiar, was he?
Though it does make me wonder why there was so little interaction between Saruman and the Dwarves. Perhaps there was and it is not mentioned; Saruman wanted to learn about Ringcraft, so perhaps he talked to the Dwarves and tried to find some of their Rings of power?

Perhaps he was just a sort of "racist". He seemed like that. He certainly didn't seem much for Elves, he counsidered them "old and gone". I think he might have thought something similar about the Dwarves, however it is true that being Aulë's maia, it is somewhat strange.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I have always thought it clear: Radagast's purpose, had he succeeded and fulfiled his task, would have been to help the Free Peoples, with special focus on the animals and plants and whatnot. That was why Yavanna had picked him. In other words, he was supposed to be a counterweight to Saruman.

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.
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.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Imagine the ideal bunch of non-fallen Wizards: Gandalf boosts the morale like he always does, Saruman makes the Free People use their creative potential to the best in order to outwit Sauron, while Radagast is there to nudge Saruman and keep him in line in case he started to make grand plans of building ten thousand forges for Gondorian army while using the entire Mirkwood for fuel. Likewise, Saruman, in his ideal place, should have reminded Radagast of his task and stopped him from "going too native".

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.

x/d with BB

[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

[Alfirin]

Something occurred to me. In a certain odd sense, Radagast's trusting of Saruman is not in fact a "failure" either, it is in fact exactly what he was supposed to do. The Valar after all had made Saruman Chief of the order, which presumably meant all the other wizards were obligated to defer to him. So in an odd sense, it is in fact Gandalf who fails in this case, by bucking the chain of command. He of course has excellent reason for doing so, and is deferring to a higher code, but the fact remains he is defying one who is his superior. And while the Valar may have known the Ishtari might very well go astray, it's a little unclear if they left instructions as to what any of the wizards should do if one of their number went off the beaten track. Indeed it may not have been until Gandalf's death that Eru (before sending him back) gave him the instruction (and authority) to cast Saruman out if he would not repent. So Radagast did exactly what he was supposed to in this case, his COC gave him an order ("Go find Ganadalf, and tell him I want him to come to Orthanc and discuss something with me.") and he did it. The fact he then left so quickly may be indicative that he thought something was a bit fishy (if it was a matter for wizards, then Radagast might have expected that the instuction would be for both of them to come) That actually may be why he sent the Eagle, to see if there was something they needed him to do (remember the eagle was sent to check on both Gandalf and Saruman). Whether Radagast ever guessed Saruman had turned to the dark side is a bit iffy (one would assume Gandalf would have sent some message (perhaps along the lines of telling Gwahir "when you have dropped me off, and return to your home, make sure you tell Radagast what has happended") if only to keep Radagast from continuing to listen to Saruman, assuming Saruman should give another order (Saruman may have little or no regard for Radagast, and think him a fool, but even fools can be put to use by the cunning mind.)

[Inziladun]

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.

[Galadriel55]

Much of the arguing seems to depend upon whether sidetracking amount to failiure.

It's like with opposites; sometimes the antonym of a word has a different meaning than the word with a "not" in front. F. ex., happy. Unhappy is quite the opposite. Yet so is not happy. But the latter can mean any number of things that do not include happy, like simply neutral but not necessarily unhappy.

It is like that here too. Saruman goes to the antonym of completing the quest - he works against it. Radagast, on the other hand, just puts the "not" in front of it.

So where do we pace the pass line now? Does one fail if he turns against the Istari's original intention, or even if he does not strictly stick to the original plan even though he does not go against it either? Does one need to dedicate everything and till the end to "pass the test", or is it enough not to be evil in order to, well, be considered not evil and therefore pass?

Where do you draw the line of passing?

[blantyr]

Has anyone written any Radagast fan fiction that shows him as an active protagonist? We seem to be getting the tale from the hobbit's point of view, notorious Gandalf friends, the bunch of them. Could Radagast have settled near where the One was lost, near where the Necromancer took shape, between the Orc filled Misty Mountains and the Mirkwood, all for a reason? Do we know he spent all his time stocking his bird feeder, or might he have plausibly kept himself quite busy?

Anyway, I for one am not in a rush to judgement. I think there was room for only one wizard archetype in the main story, Gandalf claimed the slot, leaving little room for Radagast, poor fellow.