Radagast in The Hobbit Film (SPOILERS)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Beth, in regards to animals Tolkien relied heavily on folkloric motifs throughout his corpus. This is readily apparent even in The Hobbit: Bear=Beorn relative to Anglo-Saxon and even earlier Norse motifs, the references to the Old English and Yorksire derivations of spider (ie., 'attercop', 'lob', 'cob'), Warg (from the Norse/Icelandic 'vargr', related to the deity Fenris/Fenrir, and also the A/S Beowulf 'grund-wyrgen' or 'warg of the deep'), the white stag/hart is drawn from Celtic/Brythonic lore and either presages the faery realm or the breaking of 'tynged' ('taboo', or in Irish 'geasa'), etc.

Elsewhere, horses are noble and it is also noble to ride them (the Rohirrim were utterly appalled that someone would even imply they would sell horses to Sauron); crows are harbingers of death (hence carrion-crows hanging around the gibbet or battlefield), thus the pejorative "stormcrow" levelled at Gandalf; and cats have always been associated as demonic familiars for witches; even the cock crowing prior to the charge of the Rohirrim in Gondor is a biblical motif.

Yes, of course you are right, Morth, about the folkloric bits. So, does this suggest that Tolkien was simply "placing" Radagast in a folkloric context by having him so close with animals, fitting one of his wizards into fairie?

And then there's the next bit, just how appropriately or successfully does Jackson reproduce such folkloric elements? Or is his rendition just Jackson excess?

Originally Posted by Ben K.

I'm betting dollars on animals playing a key part in the battle of Dol Guldur too, a la the Ents.

Ooooh. Does that include entwives too?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Yes, of course you are right, Morth, about the folkloric bits. So, does this suggest that Tolkien was simply "placing" Radagast in a folkloric context by having him so close with animals, fitting one of his wizards into fairie?

And then there's the next bit, just how appropriately or successfully does Jackson reproduce such folkloric elements? Or is his rendition just Jackson excess?

Nowhere does Tolkien directly describe Radagast's physical description in detail (he has a brown robe ), but based on the limited amount of dialogue he has with Gandalf, he does not sound like he's tripping on shrooms. And he rides a horse, not on a sled led by a hair-raising harem of hares.

Because of the lack of description, Jackson decided to lift elements wholesale from T.H. White's The Once and Future King (Radagast is a psychedelicized version of Merlyn, of that I am positive). I have quoted passages describing Merlyn elsewhere that are unequivocal. I love T.H. White's Merlyn, but I don't love him plopped in the middle of Middle-earth, not anymore than I would like to hear a conversation between Sir Pellinore and Gollum. Well, maybe that would be funny.

But Radagast's attitude towards nature has no direct precedent in folklore, really, not as much as Tom Bombadil resembling the Jack in the Green, for instance. No, Radagast's attitude is because of his alignment and alliances in Valinor. His affinity for the greenwood and animals is because he is a Maiaric disciple of Yavanna.

When you hang with Yavanna
Friend, make no mistake
It's the flora and fauna
You must not forsake

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

But Radagast's attitude towards nature has no direct precedent in folklore, really, not as much as Tom Bombadil resembling the Jack in the Green, for instance. No, Radagast's attitude is because of his alignment and alliances in Valinor. His affinity for the greenwood and animals is because he is a Maiaric disciple of Yavanna.

When you hang with Yavanna
Friend, make no mistake
It's the flora and fauna
You must not forsake

Of course I know that Radagast "belongs" to Yavanna. My question is really a larger, more philosophical one.

Why is it that this affinity with the natural world is seen as a weakness or failing? Why does it have to be the natural world that is Radagast's link to the Valar? (Yes, I know that the Blue Wizards have their affinities, but they don't figure much in the tales.)

Is there some implication that such dedication to the birds of Arda and the trees is somehow a lesser act and that dedication to the marred is somehow a sign of failure or is doomed to failure?

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Why is it that this affinity with the natural world is seen as a weakness or failing? Why does it have to be the natural world that is Radagast's link to the Valar? (Yes, I know that the Blue Wizards have their affinities, but they don't figure much in the tales.)

I don't think it's necessarily his affinity to nature that is his failing (at least in respects to the books)...with the movies who knows what Jackson was thinking. He saw an opportunity at a bit of artistic license with the character, and he decided to go with a standard archetype of the socially awkward, probably strung out on hallucinogenic mushrooms, hermit. I do have to admit here, I don't expect well written characters from Jackson's movies, he writes characters into archetypes and I've come to expect nothing more from his characters.

But, it's not so much Radagast's affinity to nature that is his weakness. In Saruman's mind, I think that's how he looks down on Radagast, but he also looks down on Gandalf's "childish toys" and interest in hobbits. Saruman is a high-brow prude who rarely hides his arrogance. Gandalf, however, does note Radagast's worthiness as a wizard with his knowledge of herb lore and animals.

Radagast's weakness comes down purely to his apathy and complacency in his mission to strengthen resistance against Sauron. I believe as Galin quoted earlier in the thread, Radagast didn't have much courage, and this can be seen when he tells Gandalf about the Nazgul and Gandalf notes that he races off as if the Nazgul were on his tail. Also, he was more of a friend and confidant to birds and animals, not exactly a "Steward" in charge of care-taking. I use Steward here in the same way Gandalf does when he tells Denethor in ROTK he too is a "Steward." A steward in the sense of a care-taker, or shephard. It's said that Gandalf had more respect amongst animals than Radagast:

'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'

This is from Hammand and Scull's LOTR Companion, in Tolkien Papers - "Radagast the Fool."

When we think about Gandalf he's a character always in motion. There is never a place that he seems to stay at for long, not become static in a dwelling (Saruman in Isengard, Radagast in Rhosgobel). And he's always travelling over Middle-earth to strengthen and tirelessly make sure there is resistance against Sauron. His approach is one mostly on the the peoples of Middle-earth, but he obviously had the respect from Gwaihir and the eagles. And Treebeard feels he's the only wizard who really cares about "growing things."

Radagast on the other hand, is just too complacent and static. He would have a different approach than Gandalf, being associated with Yavanna and his love for nature and animals. I would bet if Radagast, had been a tireless "wanderer" like Gandalf, and did his best to strengthen the resistance in Middle-earth's beasts and in the earth itself (I mean, there is strength within the earth itself, as evidenced with Saruman overlooks the Ents), then he probably too would have succeeded in the Istari mission. For Sauron also had many birds and beasts in his service, and had Radagast done more to counter Sauron's own influence in the animal/nature realm, but he does not...and that is how Radagast fails.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Of course I know that Radagast "belongs" to Yavanna. My question is really a larger, more philosophical one.

Why is it that this affinity with the natural world is seen as a weakness or failing? Why does it have to be the natural world that is Radagast's link to the Valar? (Yes, I know that the Blue Wizards have their affinities, but they don't figure much in the tales.)

Is there some implication that such dedication to the birds of Arda and the trees is somehow a lesser act and that dedication to the marred is somehow a sign of failure or is doomed to failure?

Radagast's mission wasn't to commune with the birds and bees, it was, with the other Istari, to unite the foes of the One Enemy; therefore, like Saruman and the Blue Wizards, he failed completely. His failure may be seen as benign when compared to the malignant intent of Saruman, but he strayed from the objective. He went native, I guess.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Radagast's mission wasn't to commune with the birds and bees, it was, with the other Istari, to unite the foes of the One Enemy; therefore, like Saruman and the Blue Wizards, he failed completely. His failure may be seen as benign when compared to the malignant intent of Saruman, but he strayed from the objective. He went native, I guess.

I would not be so quick to call the Blue Wizards failures. I think given the evidence it is more likely that they succeeded. Tolkien indicates there is a chance they managed to lead successful rebellions in the East. Considering Sauron had most of the world at his command, this does seem more likely. Whether they fail into evil afterwards or their followers did is a possibility.

[Rhod the Red]

Radagast's mission wasn't to commune with the birds and bees

Tolkein wrote a brief insight to the council of the Valar that we can look at. "each Istar were chosen by each Valar for his innate characteristics", which points to awareness of what style of efforts each Istar would make and lives they would lead. It implies Yavanna chose Aiwendil (Radagast) because of his love of wild creatures, whioch no doubt helped in the cause against the Dark Powers.

Tolkein gets grey over time after his initial writing of him. So it's sort of speculative whether he outright 'failed'.

In the books we only have Saruman pouring scorn over him (even when he follows Saruman's & Gandalf's orders precisely), no one else does. Gandalf is very praiseworthy of him (my emphasis).

Radagast is, of course, a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue; and he has much lore of herbs and beasts, and birds are especially his friends.

The conclusion of a section of the Tolkein Gateway page on him mirriors my conclusion. That he plays an obscure role in the battle against the Dark Powers, not a lazy one.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I would not be so quick to call the Blue Wizards failures. I think given the evidence it is more likely that they succeeded. Tolkien indicates there is a chance they managed to lead successful rebellions in the East. Considering Sauron had most of the world at his command, this does seem more likely. Whether they fail into evil afterwards or their followers did is a possibility.

Those are in his late writings which doesn't mesh well with the Lord of the Rings timeline, placing all the Istari arriving in the Third Age. In the later writings with the Blue Wizards Tolkien says they must have had an influence in curtailing Sauron's forces in both the 2nd and 3rd ages. Morthoron's statement about the Blue Wizards failing is consistant with the Lord of the Rings, and thus I don't see anything wrong with saying they too failed.

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Tolkein gets grey over time after his initial writing of him. So it's sort of speculative whether he outright 'failed'.

Well, as discussed in Hookbill's "No Redemption" thread with regards to Radagast, "failing" and "falling" are not always the same. Saruman both failed (the Istari mission) and had the "fall" in the sense that he adopted Sauron's worldview. He became evil, desired the One Ring, and fancied himself as one who could Rule over the "weak or idle" peoples.

Radagast did not fall to evil, but he still failed. The task of the Istari was clear, unite and rally resistance to defeat Sauron and Radagast did not do this. He became apathetic and complacent as discussed above. Of course he always worked with good intentions, but he was not in Middle-earth doing what he was supposed to be doing. And honestly, I think Radagast could care less if he was allowed back to Valinor after the defeat of Sauron. As fond of the birds, animals, and nature of Middle-earth as he became, he was likely content staying put.

[Mithalwen]

I have just read the Radagast section of the Medwed chapter of Rateliff's Mr Baggins. It does highlight the problems with the character and so perhaps explain why there are such differing opinions though different intdrpretations of failure is also a factor. He points out that Radagast is a rare loose end and that Tolkien in retrospect felt he hadn't failed exactly more that Gandalf had transcended his mission. Anyway well worth a read but which bit of writing has precedence will no doubt lead to the mighty canonicity thread that I still am awed by after all these years.

[Lalwendë]

I wonder....perhaps Jackson chooses to portray Radagast in this way as some means of making up for the loss of Tom Bombadil. That essential part of Middle-earth, the spirit of the wildwoods and of the land itself, has been completely missing so far. The Elves can't provide that element as they are not 'of' Middle-earth, and the Ents can't provide it, certainly not in Jackson's creation as he chose to make them more like trees and less like giants. To have any 'picture' of Middle-earth without the wild spirit is to have a picture that's not complete.

And, had Jackson not been so stupid as to excise Tom Bombadil from the original films, then the Radagast we get in The Hobbit might not have been so jarring to some viewers.

Now for a detour into some wild territory...I was reading a novel last night where a character makes use of Tarot cards and it got me thinking how Radagast reminds me of The Fool (and Tom Bombadil does, too). He is a loner, wild and free, existing in an almost liminal state and literally mindless of any of the restrictions that society places on appearance and behaviour. The wikipedia page is as good as any if you are not familiar with the Major Arcana and makes a note that in very early decks, The Fool was often portrayed like a tramp with raggedy clothes and feathers in his hair. Very much like Radagast in the film.

Which goes back to what Boro says about Jackson making use of archetypes. Actually, given that Radagast is such a slippery character for even very keen readers to get a handle on, is it any wonder Jackson has gone back to an archetype?

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Those are in his late writings which doesn't mesh well with the Lord of the Rings timeline, placing all the Istari arriving in the Third Age. In the later writings with the Blue Wizards Tolkien says they must have had an influence in curtailing Sauron's forces in both the 2nd and 3rd ages. Morthoron's statement about the Blue Wizards failing is consistant with the Lord of the Rings, and thus I don't see anything wrong with saying they too failed.

This is where we disagree. Sauron had control of virtually the entire world. The fact that he could not mobilise his forces as quickly or as many as would be expected indicates something was holding him back. It would make sense if he was having trouble in the East and had to divert some of his attention there.

Even if we keep the account in LOTR that they all arrived in the 3rd Age it does not mean the Blue Wizards should not have played their part.

Gondor was a shadow of what it was in it's glory. I think it's Imrahil, who says the Gondor Vanguard was around 8,000 in it's pomp. Sauron had the strength to overrun Gondor at it's height; when it had great technology, a much bigger army and better soldiers. In the War of the Ring it appears he could not muster forces even as great as in the Last Alliance let alone earlier on in the Second Age. Something must have been holding him back and this was probably the Blue Wizards.