Radagast in The Hobbit Film (SPOILERS)

[Galin]

I'm not sure anyone in any times kept birds under their hats. And even White's Merlyn kept pyjamas to wipe his head off, when his Owl might land on his head and cause a mess.

And from the pictures I have seen, this is a notable amout of droppings on a part of the body I would think an Istar of Rhosgobel might want to attend to.

[Sarumian]

Originally Posted by Galin

I'm not sure anyone in any times kept birds under their hats. And even White's Merlyn kept pyjamas to wipe his head off, when his Owl might land on his head and cause a mess.

And from the pictures I have seen, this is a notable amout of droppings on a part of the body I would think an Istar of Rhosgobel might want to attend to.

This makes me think, in turn, about Bob Marley and "40 species of insects in his hair". Another city legend characterising a peculiar person with a great talent.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"And why does a wizard always have to look in a spiffy robe?

Obviously not every one will or should. Each has their own personality & lives to lead."

In case you hadn't noticed, Gandalf's robes are pretty shabby around the edges. But what he does have- what *any* of Tolkien's Istari had, regardless of "personality," was dignity- something Elmer Fuddagast has none of whatsoever.

[Boromir88]

Not being able to wash up, or in some way bathe regularly, is not at all the same as just letting birds defecate on you. Spin it however you want, Radagast's appearance was more of the same over the top, ridiculous lack of subtlety from Jackson. (And I say this as someone who for the most part, enjoyed the movie, including the way Radagast was used. But his appearance is Jackson going overboard again.)

There is absolutely nothing wrong or rude about Legolas' post. So, can we please move on from that topic?

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

It may not be a rule here, but like the rules you sometimes see like 'Don't roll eyes' it can be seen as unfair, or bullying, whatever phrase you want to use, to respond in an online forum with facts, especially a lot of facts. It doesn't matter if the post is 100% true, you're being unfair to the other poster.

What on earth? Using facts is bullying, and unfair...? I'm pretty sure everyone here has access to the Silm and thus to the same facts, and I don't think I'm wrong in believing most of us here appreciate informative, well researched posts! I don't know what these other forums you refer to are, but they certainly sound lovely.

On topic, I'm actually a bit torn about Radagast. I was put off by his costume and lack of dignity at first, but then it started to seem appropriate: he has become immersed in the natural world, and is thus not disgusted by its messiness. Like someone else mentioned, a shepherd becoming like his sheep, or an ent becoming treeish. It looks like an altered state of consciousness, psychedelic mushrooms aside; there is something zen about him.

"certainly the sparrow has Buddha nature. Indeed it is very intelligent; it knows that Buddha is very compassionate, that is why it left its droppings on the head of the Buddha instead of leaving it on the head of a hawk! "

"Also, Buddhist monks used the droppings to polish and clean their bald scalps."

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Rikae

On topic, I'm actually a bit torn about Radagast. I was put off by his costume and lack of dignity at first, but then it started to seem appropriate: he has become immersed in the natural world, and is thus not disgusted by its messiness. Like someone else mentioned, a shepherd becoming like his sheep, or an ent becoming treeish. It looks like an altered state of consciousness, psychedelic mushrooms aside; there is something zen about him.

"certainly the sparrow has Buddha nature. Indeed it is very intelligent; it knows that Buddha is very compassionate, that is why it left its droppings on the head of the Buddha instead of leaving it on the head of a hawk! "

"Also, Buddhist monks used the droppings to polish and clean their bald scalps."

I'd like to go back to this idea which Rikae has suggested, not that I want to argue with her, but because I have been thinking about the characterisation of someone who cares for animals.

Western culture has not been particularly kind to animals, based as it was/is on a hierarchy which sees humans as superior to animals and which does not grant souls to sentient life other than humans, thus making the slaughter of animals acceptable. Yet there have been many philosophers, teachers, and writers who have reminded us that a measure of our humanity is how we treat animals.

Schopenhauer claimed, in The Basis of Morality the following:

Originally Posted by Schopenhauer

“Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.”

Much research in contemporary psychology is proving that psychopaths and sociopaths begin their path of hatred by indulging in cruelty to animals.

So I have long wondered why Tolkien makes one of his failed Maia fail possibly because he became too involved with animal needs--or simply be characterised by a great love of animals. Is this an irrelevant quality or something related to Tolkien's vision of Middle-earth? Certainly I would expect that Tolkien would be well versed in Saint Francis' creed.

Yet Tolkien has animals play evil parts; to his everlasting shame he denigrates cats! And crows are supposed to be the vile spies of Sauron. I need not go into wargs or spiders. Perhaps this comes from traditions in fairy tales. But he has allowed himself to present animals as negative creatures and he has suggested that Radagast misses his mission because he becomes too concerned for animal welfare.

It's not exactly a ringing Buddhist endorsement for the sanctity of all life, but then I wouldn't expect Tolkien to be a Buddhist.

Then we have Radagast as portrayed in the movie. Some see him as totally engrossed and involved in animal life as to be at home with bird droppings on him. Others find this gross and an indignity to his position as one of the Maiar. (I'm not thinking of any posts specificially but generalising.)

Since I haven't seen the movie, I cannot say what I think of the depiction, but it seems to me that we can ask a couple of questions about what this depiction means.

Why is, in Lalwende's words, being bonkers portrayed as being totally overtaken by animals? Can we take the movie to suggest the old western tradition that animals are beneath humans and therefore any one concerned with animal well being and living close to nature like an animal is somehow less human, less close to divinity (or high elven values), less able to fight off evil?

Is it too much to ask if the depiction of Radagast raises questions about the place of animals in the moral framework of Middle-earth?

[Lalwendë]

I've always found Tolkien to have confused messages about animals and the environment in his work. But really, he has the same attitudes as most people do (or did, in regard to the environment, not sure we are so kind to that right now). He has creatures he likes or admires and in his creation he accords them with the corresponding status. Other creatures, he's clearly not so fond of - cats and spiders for example.

The Catholic Catechism states:

“Animals are God’s creatures. By their mere existence they bless Him and give Him glory. Thus men owe them kindness.”

There's an expectation that Catholics treat animal life with respect. But there's also no requirement to become vegetarian or anything similar. So I don't think we could have expected Tolkien to have a more modern, green attitude. He maybe even saw too much focus on animals over humans as slightly indulgent - I know that a huge character failing that British culture has is that we so often privilege animals over children (I doubt a secret film of a woman putting a child into a wheelie bin would have generated as much outrage as the one of a woman putting a cat into a wheelie bin did), and often to fatal ends when the family dog ("He was as daft as a brush" is the usual cry) attacks them.

Perhaps Tolkien, having been through war and seeing at first hand what human suffering looked like, took a more practical stance and really did think humans merited higher preference?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

. . . I know that a huge character failing that British culture has is that we so often privilege animals over children (I doubt a secret film of a woman putting a child into a wheelie bin would have generated as much outrage as the one of a woman putting a cat into a wheelie bin did), and often to fatal ends when the family dog ("He was as daft as a brush" is the usual cry) attacks them. . . .

Yes, as I do recall, I believe you had a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals eons before you had any child welfare legislation or health provisions.

. . . . The Catholic Catechism states:
Animals are God’s creatures. By their mere existence they bless Him and give Him glory. Thus men owe them kindness.

And there is, as I said, certainly St. Francis' work. Yet saying something is not the same as doing something. After all, there are prohibitions against murder in the Ten Commandments but that didn't stop pograms against Jews in the Middle Ages or witch hunts and burnings. In general, the attitude towards the lesser status of animals is common in Western culture.

I agree with you that Tolkien's use of animals appears related to his own personal preferences--although the eagles clearly have a genesis in biblical references--but really my question is more to the point of why Radagast's love of animals is so closely tied with his failings.

Is he a buffoon because he loves animals or are his animalistic habits a sign of his madness? And what are we to think of Peter Jackson, who apparently wishes to modernise the female presence in Middle-earth as he wanted to modernise Aragorn's style of heroism or manhood, but who seems quite happy to use animals as the butt of jokes and crudity? Or does his politically correct consciousness not extend to animals?

[Ben K.]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Is he a buffoon because he loves animals or are his animalistic habits a sign of his madness? And what are we to think of Peter Jackson, who apparently wishes to modernise the female presence in Middle-earth as he wanted to modernise Aragorn's style of heroism or manhood, but who seems quite happy to use animals as the butt of jokes and crudity? Or does his politically correct consciousness not extend to animals?

Yep, PJ has PC'ed the treatment of animals.

The Elves are implied to be vegetarian (one of dwarves query where the meat is at in Rivendell as he looks upon some greens on his plate). A philosophy endorsed by Elves is high praise indeed in Middle Earth.

Yes, Radagast is no stranger to buffoonery but a buffoon whose heart is portrayed as in the right place. He also does useful stuff like distracting the orcs and informing the Council that the Enemy is back. He appears to be using his innate Istari power to rescue animals in one scene. Ultimately, I think the writers wanted to portray him as an eccentric genius character and yes, a good guy.

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

I am a fan of the character, especially since I detect a hint of buffoonery in all the Istari already. I read them as all being failures, with Gandalf needing God himself to give him a second chance.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And there is, as I said, certainly St. Francis' work. Yet saying something is not the same as doing something. After all, there are prohibitions against murder in the Ten Commandments but that didn't stop pograms against Jews in the Middle Ages or witch hunts and burnings. In general, the attitude towards the lesser status of animals is common in Western culture.

I agree with you that Tolkien's use of animals appears related to his own personal preferences--although the eagles clearly have a genesis in biblical references--but really my question is more to the point of why Radagast's love of animals is so closely tied with his failings.

Is he a buffoon because he loves animals or are his animalistic habits a sign of his madness? And what are we to think of Peter Jackson, who apparently wishes to modernise the female presence in Middle-earth as he wanted to modernise Aragorn's style of heroism or manhood, but who seems quite happy to use animals as the butt of jokes and crudity? Or does his politically correct consciousness not extend to animals?

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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I agree with you that Tolkien's use of animals appears related to his own personal preferences--although the eagles clearly have a genesis in biblical references--but really my question is more to the point of why Radagast's love of animals is so closely tied with his failings.

I would say that to put it simply, Radagast was not doing what he was sent there to do, namely to help the peoples of Middle-earth. As Saruman was not. And the Blue Wizards. Time and again Tolkien shows us that the animal life and the beings existing on the blurry boundary between flora/fauna and 'people' (e.g. Ents) are actually quite self sufficient and self sustaining. The Ents do not want the 'help' of men or Istari. The Mearas and the Eagles likewise are proud creatures and do not want help.

Note that the 'good' people of Middle-earth are not really shown to use animals much aside from horses and ponies. Those who do make extensive use of animals (wargs, dragons, oliphaunts, crows, etc) are more often on the side of evil.

Is he a buffoon because he loves animals or are his animalistic habits a sign of his madness? And what are we to think of Peter Jackson, who apparently wishes to modernise the female presence in Middle-earth as he wanted to modernise Aragorn's style of heroism or manhood, but who seems quite happy to use animals as the butt of jokes and crudity? Or does his politically correct consciousness not extend to animals?

Are there jokes made at the expense of animals? I can't think of any so you will have to help me out here!

The Elves are implied to be vegetarian (one of dwarves query where the meat is at in Rivendell as he looks upon some greens on his plate). A philosophy endorsed by Elves is high praise indeed in Middle Earth.

Yes, Radagast is no stranger to buffoonery but a buffoon whose heart is portrayed as in the right place. He also does useful stuff like distracting the orcs and informing the Council that the Enemy is back. He appears to be using his innate Istari power to rescue animals in one scene. Ultimately, I think the writers wanted to portray him as an eccentric genius character and yes, a good guy.

Actually, I can't think of any instances in any of the books of Elves eating meat, so I am going to have to do a search for that...And we will have Beorn coming up who notably does not eat meat (though he is not a vegan!).

I like the phrase 'buffoon' - it's not a malicious term at all, it's gentle and seems to suit someone who has gone off-task and is eccentric, even in Middle-earth terms. People who find Boris Johnson amusing call him a 'buffoon' affectionately. I have other terms I prefer to use though, as 'buffoon' is far too nice

the references to the Old English and Yorkshire derivations of spider (ie., 'attercop', 'lob', 'cob'),

It's not a Yorkshire dialect word except very rarely and only archaically even then. It's a Lancashire dialect word still in everyday use. The ultimate origin in England is as likely to have been Norse from eitterkopp given that this has more influence on Northern England (clearly both the Norse and Old English shared the same root back on the continent so it's swings and roundabouts). If heard spoken by a Lancastrian it sound thus: ehyterkop. Tolkien probably saw it in The Owl and the Nightingale, which was clearly written by a Northerner.

'Lob' as in 'Lazy Lob' could also take humour from lobcock which means an idle good for nothing. And 'crazy Cob' from the term used right across the North for being angry: "getting a cob on".

Thankfully Tolkien did not stumble upon the Lancashire dialect words for mice and dandelions.

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?

Quite possibly he does, given that the one place I did find lots of these 'bunny sleds' was on vintage german Christmas cards. There's obviously something in german folklore or fairy tale about rabbit sleds, but I'm at a brickwall on that as it's something I'm not that knowledgeable on.

[Rhod the Red]

Well, as I pointed out earlier, the location of Radagasts' residence was hardly conducive to regular washes. I don't recall even in the movie a slight glimpse of a stream, etc, unless I missed it.

Nor Toklein addressing these kinds of lifestyle issues. He focused on the story events and themes, not these lifestyle decisions . So it relatively a speculative issue. Did he CHOOSE to leave that poop on his face, or have difficulty regularly washing?

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

'... So it relatively a speculative issue. Did he CHOOSE to leave that poop on his face, or have difficulty regularly washing?'

I would say he either chose to, or maybe was so out of his mind that he wasn't aware of bird droppings running down to his shoulders in his hair, despite that he seems aware that he kept birds under his hat.

Or maybe you have some other reason? Not washing because he doesn't have easy access to water doesn't cut it in my opinion, as...


A) I doubt Tolkien's maps intend to show every source of water in the lands depicted, never mind the collection of rain.

B) One doesn't necessarily need water to wipe excrement off of one's head. White's Merlyn didn't.

[Lalwendë]

I'm probably closer to Radagast in terms of experiencing rural filth than most others here ever will be. And I'm old enough to remember the 1970s when it was normal to only have a bath once a week, whether you had an indoor bathroom or not. I also worked on my brother's travelling shop and we went to the really isolated farms on Saturdays. At one old farm, a couple had moved the bed into the 'kitchen', which was just a room with a range, a sink and a load of hens running round and pooing on the table/chairs/everything. The filth was spectacular.

As for poo, one day I was wearing my nice new brown M&S anorak while messing with my nan's hens and as usual carrying them round under my arm, ending up with my pockets full of dung. One of the jobs my boatmen ancestors did in the 1800s was load their barges with 'nightsoil' to spread all over the fields and grow taters and carrots in. Yum!

Has nobody heard of the saying "Muck for luck?" It's a way of laughing off the highly likely chance that you will get pooed on by a pigeon/seagull in the UK. If you're sat on the graveyard wall and enjoying a bag of chips and get divebombed you don't go screaming like a girl for antiseptic wipes, you just let it dry and then pick it off later. No sense in letting your chips go cold.

All of which is my way of explaining that rural filth was very much a part of life not many years ago, and a lot of us aren't even now that bothered by it, so it's not something I have to suspend disbelief on one little bit to accept that anyone living in the middle ages or the wildwood might get covered in guano and muck.

[Galin]

... so it's not something I have to suspend disbelief on one little bit to accept that anyone living in the middle ages or the wildwood might get covered in guano and muck.

Are you going to argue that any of your scenarios (in post 47) are really equivalent to what we have with Jackson's character? No doubt if you have birds living under your hat you might get bird droppings on your head... so you wipe the droppings off your head when they occur, water or no; and especially that much.

I haven't seen anyone complain that Radagast is generally unclean, it's the over the top treatment of Peter Jackson's 'Radagast' that appears to be the objection.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Galin

Not washing because he doesn't have easy access to water doesn't cut it in my opinion, as...

By the way I apologize for not writing the more obvious and thus better 'doesn't wash' instead of 'doesn't cut it'.

Drat.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galin

By the way I apologize for not writing the more obvious and thus better 'doesn't wash' instead of 'doesn't cut it'.

Drat.

I often get staircase wit myself - it's annoying

Originally Posted by Galin

Are you going to argue that any of your scenarios (in post 47) are really equivalent to what we have with Jackson's character? No doubt if you have birds living under your hat you might get bird droppings on your head... so you wipe the droppings off your head when they occur, water or no; and especially that much.

I haven't seen anyone complain that Radagast is generally unclean, it's the over the top treatment of Peter Jackson's 'Radagast' that appears to be the objection.

What I'm saying is it wasn't that odd at all to me. I've seen enough muck on and around country folk. Which is exactly what Radagast is - he has nobody to impress but presumably a lot of animals taking up his time. He's eccentric, a loner, and most of all, he's busy - he's not going to stop in his rush to meet up with Gandalf and wipe up birdpoo off his head.

Might be an age and cultural thing though as to whether people find it a step too far or are accepting that someone might be that care less.

[Galin]

White's Merlyn kept dead mice and worms under his skull cap, and looked like something had been nesting in his hair... but even he makes note of the pyjamas for wiping bird droppings off the wizard's head.

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

[Mithalwen]

Water is the essential for life, embodied even a maia presumably needs to drink and animals do. Radagast must have had access to a stream or spring.

[Rhod the Red]

That's speculation. So don't bother putting it in an online encyclopedia profile page like on Tolkein Gateway, it'd be removed.

[MithrilPants]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

That's speculation. So don't bother putting it in an online encyclopedia profile page like on Tolkein Gateway, it'd be removed.

irony
so much irony

[Rhod the Red]

Might be ironic for you but it's a fact. The user Morgan for example is visceral towards anything outsourced.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I wonder why this film is generating such animosity? Please post politely and on the subject - posts that simply address other members' right to hold their own opinions, etc. will be deleted without warning. Should the animosity continue, the thread will be closed.

Thank you!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Though I must say that I have *never* heard of a forum where evidence-based arguments are *forbidden*.

TORN. Or at least, factual content is irrelevant there if the post doesn't conform to the forum requirement of slobbering PJ-worship.

[Legolas]

The guideline about quoting is referring to excessively quoting others' post(s), i.e. dissecting a post by making each sentence of that post into a separate quote so that you can write a retort to every. single. word. someone. said.

It is not at all intended to place a limit on the amount of information you can place in a post, e.g. facts, quotes from actual books, etc. That sort of thing is actually valued in a discussion forum based on an author's extensive catalog of literature! As many of you have guessed, providing facts and textual support for opinions is encouraged. As with anything, there could be a line for overdoing it (like pasting two complete chapters in response to a single sentence), but I assure you that providing a single quote (as I did) does not come close to crossing that line.

I don't find it to be speculation that Rhadagast would've needed and had access to water. The Istari, Maiar in nature they may be, were subject to mortal needs during their incarnate period:

For [the Istari] must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and weariness coming from the flesh. (Unfinished Tales)

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).

When Gandalf is telling the Council of Elrond about encountering Radagast on the road near Bree, he says:

It was Radagast the Brown, who at one time dwelt at Rhosgobel, near the borders of Mirkwood. (The Fellowship of the Ring)

The fact that Rhosgobel even has such a name makes me feel sure it was more than a dilapidated, gnarled tree house, but that choice of words - "at one time dwelt at Rhosgobel" - gives even more reason to suspect it was a respectable or at least notable place. Was it more than a house? A particularly large residence? A village? It's unfair to assume Gandalf is just namedropping for sake of doing so (or to inform readers). Why would he mention the name to the Council? He must have thought he was providing some frame of reference for at least some in his audience. Furthermore, it is mentioned in "The Ring Goes South" that some of Rivendell's scouts passed by Rhosgobel.

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Legloas, you could have just stated that Saruman was a snob towards Radagast even before they set out for Middle-earth and leave it at that.

Nor fling 'emissaries' like some kind of tennis ball you want to murder another player with.

My point was not that Saruman already disliked Rhadagast; it was that Saruman doesn't like anyone who doesn't serve him. He is dismissive all around.

I'm not sure how it comes across that I am flinging emissary as a euphemism, or that I am "exaggerating" it with "blatant overuse." Does it carry some other strong connotations that the rest of us don't always associate with the word? If so, that's understandable, but emissary here is the exact word Tolkien used when he wrote about the Valar selecting the Istari who were to stir Elves and Men against Sauron. Simply put, an emissary is "a representative sent on a mission." They were emissaries of the Valar.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Legolas

...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).

Not "hedge" but "hedgehog", in this case a mammoth hedge pig by the name of "Spiny Norman" whose enemy went by the name of "Dinsdale Pirhana". Spiny Norman eventually left Rhosgobel and is believed to be living in an airplane hangar at Luton Airport.

[Rhod the Red]

Emissary has an official inference though, the Istari's mission was secret. The casual reader would think otherwise because the word 'emissary'. That was the point I was making.

With, say Disney's Sword in the Stone, it shows at the start Merlin using water from a well outside his residence, so yes adaptions to a film/cartoon can have realism factors included in it. PJ didn't do that with Rhadagasts' home. We didn't even see an outside toilet nor the sled parked outside it, etc.

[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?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Emissary has an official inference though, the Istari's mission was secret. The casual reader would think otherwise because the word 'emissary'. That was the point I was making.

Emissary comes from the Latin "sent out". Among its meanings are spy and secret agent. Speculative casual reader may have been thinking of embassy possibly.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Emissary comes from the Latin "sent out". Among its meanings are spy and secret agent. Speculative casual reader may have been thinking of embassy possibly.

Yes, like many words, it has a lot of meanings, and shades of meaning. You can't just arbitrarily decide one of them is the only true one– and then get outraged that other people don't follow your personal usage.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Emissary has an official inference though, the Istari's mission was secret. The casual reader would think otherwise because the word 'emissary'. That was the point I was making.

Emissary is most certainly applicable. Just because you haven't the faintest idea of the word's meaning does not disqualify its proper usage. In any case, the "official" inference applies to the Istari, as they were sent on a specific mission by the Valar. If you looked up the etymology for the word "emissary" (which in your case would be profitable), you will find the following:

L. emissarius, lit. "that is sent out," from emissus, pp. of emittere "send forth".

The word was used by the Romans in regards to spying, or an agent sent out on a secret mission. It is certainly not as specific as "ambassador" which implies a letter of credentials being turned over to another government.

As far as what the "casual reader" would think, I would hope they would look up the word if they were unsure of the meaning. This is how one attains a better vocabulary. But the Istari were emissaries of the Valar; in fact, that is a word Tolkien uses on several occasions in regards to them in his Letters.

So you are completely out of line on several levels.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Yes, the Istari were representatives of the Valar, though in the unofficial sense. Because their mission was secret with restrictions on their uses of Magic, etc.

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #144

They were thought to be Emissaries (in terms of this tale from the Far West beyond the sea), and their proper function, maintained by Gandalf, and perverted by Saruman, was to encourage and bring about the native powers of the enemies of Sauron

and -

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #145

I am sure you are right: Gandalf was of course always old. He was an Emissary, who had that shape from the first...

and again -

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #153

The power of the Ring, over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion - but it is not the whole picture...

and yet again for added emphasis -

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #156

...[Gandalf] with the other Istari, wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon.

and one more time to bludgeon you with the facts -

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #153

The istari are translated 'wizards' because of the connexion of 'wizard' with wise and so with 'writing' and knowing. They are actually emissaries from the True West, and so immediately from God, sent precisely to strengthen the resistance of 'good', when the Valar became aware that the shadow of Sauron is taking shape.

In three instances, Tolkien's capitalization of "Emissaries" and "Emissary" clearly indicates a title and official nature of their secret mission. There are four more instances of Tolkien using the words emissary or emissaries in regards to the istari in his letters.