Radagast in The Hobbit Film (SPOILERS)

[Galin]

With respect to the name: Hammond and Scull note: rhosc 'brown' + gobel 'walled house or village 'town'. In his unfinished index Tolkien notes: 'Rhosgobel as 'russet village or town (enclosure).' And this is basically repeated in the Unfinished Tales index.

To me (not a trained linguist however) it looks like *go-pel with pel being 'fenced field' (compare Pelennor).

Sindarin go- looks to mean 'together' according to Quendi And Eldar and other sources, and looks to be the same element as in Legolas, which in letters later than Q&E, Tolkien explains golas(s) as meaning 'collection' of leaves.

Words, Phrases And Passages: 'WO- WONO- together (of things in company but not physically actually joined) (...) Sindarin go, gwa...'

While perhaps not definitive, I would guess Rhosgobel was more of a village than a single, even if fenced, dwelling. As in the index noted above.

__________

Hammond and Scull have published an interesting comparison between Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast (Reader's Companion to The Lord of the Rings, page 244 - 245) entry: 'Radagast the fool!...'

Tolkien apparently looks again at the postcard Ber Berggeist [there are birds in the trees in the picture] which had influenced his conception of Gandalf, and writes (in part):

'Gandalf or Radagast? Gandalf. He was the friend and confidant of all living creatures of good will (...) Radagast was fond of beasts and birds, and found them easier to deal with; he did not become proud or domineering, but neglectful and easygoing, and he had very little to do with Elves or Men although obviously resistance to Sauron had to be sought chiefly in their cooperation. But since he remained of good will (but not much courage), his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments. Saruman is sufficietly revealed in the story...'

But then Tolkien goes on to compare the physical appearance of Saruman:

'It would seem from the beginning he adopted a visible form of commanding stature and noble countenance. Unlike Gandalf, who in contrast would appear stumpy, and in certain aspects comic or grotesque in looks and manner.'

In a variant version of a part of this text: '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.'


Jumping back in time, back to The Istari essay (1954):

'The first to come was one of noble mien and bearning, with raven hair, and a fair voice, and he was regarded by well nigh all, even by the Eldar, as the head of the Order. Others there were also: two clad in sea-blue, and one in earthen brown; and last came one who seemed the least, less tall than the others, and in looks more aged, grey-haired and gre-clad, and leaning on a staff.'

Of course this is before Radagast lost his way in Middle-earth, but my general impression is that Gandalf was the 'least' according to outward appearance, while yet the 'greatest', as it would prove considering all things, within. Again I can accept that Radagast became more rustic looking over the years, but I think Jackson's portrayal goes much too far, if it wasn't obvious by now anyway.

And I know defenders of Jackson's version especially might disagree, or possibly even argue that parts of this could support Jackson's version, but I thought I would post this anyway.


By the way, my earlier post (post 49) was meant to be 'ironical' or something: more obvious does not necessarily mean 'better'.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galin

Which would take but a few moments, for even a busy Istar, I would think.

I still think it's a matter of taste and expectation and it doesn't bother me. Maybe I have a strong stomach. From experience in trying to fly out of the house with a baby and catch the bus, I've left the house with sick stained/ripped/unsuitable clothes on many a time and I went to work with my clothes on inside out just a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes there's just not time to worry.

Originally Posted by Galin

With respect to the name: Hammond and Scull note: rhosc 'brown' + gobel 'walled house or village 'town'. In his unfinished index Tolkien notes: 'Rhosgobel as 'russet village or town (enclosure).' And this is basically repeated in the Unfinished Tales index.

To me (not a trained linguist however) it looks like *go-pel with pel being 'fenced field' (compare Pelennor).

Sindarin go- looks to mean 'together' according to Quendi And Eldar and other sources, and looks to be the same element as in Legolas, which in letters later than Q&E, Tolkien explains golas(s) as meaning 'collection' of leaves.

Words, Phrases And Passages: 'WO- WONO- together (of things in company but not physically actually joined) (...) Sindarin go, gwa...'

While perhaps not definitive, I would guess Rhosgobel was more of a village than a single, even if fenced, dwelling. As in the index noted above.

Fair enough analysis - it could be that there was a settlement there at some point, as we know Woodmen have been active around there, though have suffered from attacks lately when the events of The Hobbit occur.

Originally Posted by Legolas

He had to have water from somewhere. If nothing else, his home would not have been that far from the Anduin River. Rhadagast had no trouble with mobility - though I suspect his primary method of travel was his horse, not a sled pulled by rabbits (!).

...which reminds me of another problem I had with Rhadagast's portrayal - that his home, Rhosgobel, was shown as nothing more than a shack, a rather spontaneous looking heap of wood and foliage. Part of the name (-gobel) suggests it was protected by a wall, fence or hedge-like barrier (perhaps similar to Beorn's).

The only thing I didn't like about it was in the wide view shown in John Howe's design artwork - it was perilously close to looking like Hagrid's hut. Though there may well have been some kind of wall or hedge, we just didn't see that (hopefully we will see more later on). The concept of it being built around a tree is quite appealing though, both in a Middle-earth and real world context. We have flets in Middle-earth and this is another approach to making use of the existing structure of a solid tree. In the real world dwellings are built around trees - there was a fisherman's cottage across the fields from our family home that had an Oak as part of the gable structure and a pub of the same vintage (Tudor, at least) a few villages away that made the same use of a tree. It also riffs on the Robin Hood myth of the Major Oak, and has 'green' connotations, so I have no objection to the concept.

However, I'm in two minds about whether he would have had a horse. Would this be practical in the wildwoods?

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I still think it's a matter of taste and expectation and it doesn't bother me. Maybe I have a strong stomach. From experience in trying to fly out of the house with a baby and catch the bus, I've left the house with sick stained/ripped/unsuitable clothes on many a time and I went to work with my clothes on inside out just a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes there's just not time to worry.

Well I don't want to compare stomach strengths (not that I could in any event), but if the film consistently portrays Radagast trying to catch a rabbit sled with an infant in his arms, I might better understand why he leaves some [IMO] significant bird droppings on his head.

Fair enough analysis - it could be that there was a settlement there at some point, as we know Woodmen have been active around there, though have suffered from attacks lately when the events of The Hobbit occur.

Thanks. The attempted linguistic analysis was more due to Legolas' wondering about the name, not to try and prove Jackson had made some kind of blunder with respect to the books.

I don't find a tree house, or that it might not seem to be part of a larger village, necessarily objectionable for a film. Generally speaking anyway. But that said, I haven't seen this film yet, although I have seen images of Radagast, and read people chatting about how over the top he is as a character...

... some people anyway. And since I find Jackson's treatment quite often to be over the top for my tastes...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well I don't want to compare stomach strengths (not that I could in any event), but if the film consistently portrays Radagast trying to catch a rabbit sled with an infant in his arms, I might better understand why he leaves some [IMO] significant bird droppings on his head.

Radagast with a baby? I suppose if in twenty years' time I have enough money to do a re-imagining of The Hobbit that would really upset people then I'm going to include that.

Thanks. The attempted linguistic analysis was more due to Legolas' wondering about the name, not to try and prove Jackson had made some kind of blunder with respect to the books.

I don't find a tree house, or that it might not seem to be part of a larger village, necessarily objectionable for a film. Generally speaking anyway. But that said, I haven't seen this film yet, although I have seen images of Radagast, and read people chatting about how over the top he is as a character...

... some people anyway. And since I find Jackson's treatment quite often to be over the top for my tastes...

Take a look at the John Howe concept art, it doesn't look very much different in the film itself so you will get a good idea without having to go to the cinema. I'd say it's less a 'tree house' and more a house built around a tree.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I mean you can be immersed with nature and turn into a hermit with idiosyncratic stuff, sure, and Tolkien's portrayal of Radagast gives every license to that reading of him as a character, but as one of the Maiar it is hard for me to see him as what PJ and his team made him; but needing someone to be laughed at - like Gimli in the LotR.

I certainly didn't laugh at him, I can say that. I thought he was quite bonkers, but he wasn't comic to me. I wonder who finds him funny here?

[The Barrow-Wight]

If I'm not mistaken, and I'm not, this thread is about Radagast in the Hobbit Film. Let's get back to that topic and away from talking about each other. Keep it civil or I'll have to shut it down - as well at the accounts of those who do not heed this post.

**edit ** For now, I will edit a few posts.

**2nd edit ** Yikes! What a mess. You all need to stop making a mess in the barrow!