Imagine No Redemption

[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.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I wish I could write a better response but computer troubles have tied my hands. And it is very difficult to type with tied hands.

The discussion of Radagast shows, I think, the main point of the topic; that there are so few examples of one turning from evil to good that we must discuss at length what constitutes turning to evil or back.
If you count the fight against Sauron as the ultimate 'good' and that anything that does not aid that to be therefore 'evil' I think there may be a case to be made. Though he does dip his toe into the waters of helping in the fight, Radagast generally stays out of the buisiness of helping. If he'd been more involved perhaps it would have gone smoother, therefore his lack of aid could be seen as inadvertently helping Sauron.
A sort of "if you are not for us then you are against us" situation.

Radagast's heart is in the right place, perhaps. His head may not be. Be does not turn to the dark side and so has nothing to repent of, unless his lack of full commitment to the mission counts against him.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.

Yes, yes. But that goes back to what I have said earlier: Radagast did not fall, only fail. His failure was the same to that of initial Saruman's, only Saruman proceeded to "final stage", where he turned against his original purpose.
In other words, the story of any Istari can be put somewhere into this kind of scheme:
Stage 1 - a Wizard is sent to Middle-Earth and stays 100% true to his purpose. That is Gandalf, who remains there all the way, thus earns his "return ticket"; other Wizards were in this cathegory initially, but later the "temptations of flesh" led them to Stage 2.
Stage 2 - a Wizard who neglects his vocation, nonetheless, he is merely lacking, he does not do any active evil. Radagast and possibly the Blues eventually proceed into this cathegory. Saruman proceeded into this stage originally, when he started concentrating more on his own devices and not on the good of Middle-Earth as whole.
Stage 3 - a Wizard who actively starts building his own agenda, selfishly, and wilfully abandons his mission for his own gain and power. This is, of course, Saruman. Note that Radagast did not fall into this stage, because I don't think he ever abandoned his mission consciously. Whenever Gandalf etc called, he would still come and help. He never sought the Ring for himself. But neither did he actively aid the Free Peoples unless he was asked to.

And also, let me repeat what I said before - Radagast perhaps no more cared about getting the "return ticket", just as much as he no more cared about his mission. So it is no "punishment" not to give him the place on the Last Ship (Saruman is punished by being cast out of the Order because he deserves it; but Radagast does not need to be punished for anything), it is simply agreeing to his terms. "Fine - you want to just be left alone and play with animals, so you may stay and play with them." It is, in fact, granting what Radagast wanted. So I don't think he was unhappy or anything. From the overall view, of course, he failed in his task, but that's it.

Originally Posted by 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?

Perfectly spoken. See what I said just above in this post; also, I think it is clear from Tolkien that you don't need to be a "workoholic fighter against evil" to be considered good. Continuing along these lines...

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

If you count the fight against Sauron as the ultimate 'good' and that anything that does not aid that to be therefore 'evil' I think there may be a case to be made. Though he does dip his toe into the waters of helping in the fight, Radagast generally stays out of the buisiness of helping. If he'd been more involved perhaps it would have gone smoother, therefore his lack of aid could be seen as inadvertently helping Sauron.
A sort of "if you are not for us then you are against us" situation.

Radagast's heart is in the right place, perhaps. His head may not be. Be does not turn to the dark side and so has nothing to repent of, unless his lack of full commitment to the mission counts against him.

...certainly not. So, to continue the previous thought: I believe it is rather clear that there are no extremes like that "if you are not for us you are against us" in Tolkien. I think the best proof of that is the existence, or the manner of existence of Hobbits - they certainly are not opposing Sauron in any active way (of course apart from Frodo et al.), but they are good and causing no harm (just like Radagast did, I guess), and they certainly are not condemned alongside Sauron and Morgoth as "enemies"...

Originally Posted by 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.

I think certainly people did, or at least thought of such things (I did think about it). I believe there were some RPs in the roleplaying section of this forum operating with Fourth Age Radagast as the Wizard "whose time came now", I think perhaps the Blue might have also been involved, or I am mixing up two threads together, but there definitely was something like that, about Mordor in the Fourth Age, I believe? You can try to find it, I didn't take part in that one, but certainly there are people around who have been there.

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?

That is just as well possible. I think originally he might have settled there - or been ordered to settle there (by Saruman? I doubt Radagast knew on his own where Isildur fell, unless some random vulture had told him...) to watch over the place, or even more likely, to watch over Mirkwood and its darkness, which however eventually degraded into just sitting more than watching. It seems to me that way.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Saruman was a turn cloak. I don't think Radagast was; the worst you could say of him would be that he kept his cloak in the wardrobe and only brought it out for special occasions - Christmas, funerals and weddings as it were.

He didn't turn bad, and that's the point of the topic. If you were to make a list of good guys and bad guys you'd probably put him in the good box. Even if be is a little scatter brained or misguided.
I wonder if Gandalf should have taken him under his wing as a sort of cousin and they could have travelled Middle Earth together, like the blues. Gandalf keeping Radagast on the path and Radagast lightening Gandalf's burdain. Who knows?