Radagast in The Hobbit Film (SPOILERS)

[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?

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

I had Bombadil in mind too, from something Galdor said at The Council of Elrond:

'I know little of Iarwain save the name,' said Galdor; 'but Glorfindel, I think, is right. Power to defy our Enemy is not in him, unless such power is in the earth itself. And yet we see that Sauron can torture and destroy the very hills....'

So you might be on to something about Radagast filling in for Bombadil being cut from LOTR. And having Radagast also represent the "wild spirit" of the land itself.

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?

Now that's interesting. There is very little about Radagast, for sure. His meeting with Gandalf we can tell he's definitely disturbed by carrying the news about the Nazgul:

"I have an urgent errand," he said. "My news is evil." Then he looked about him, as if the hedges might have ears. "Nazgul," he whispered..."~ibid

Nervous? Anxious? Whatever it is, he's bothered the message he has to give to Gandalf.

"Then you must go now,...I myself shall turn back at once." And with that he mounted and would have ridden straight off.
...
"I will do that," he said, and rode off as if the Nine were after him."~ibid

Radagast is going to race right off (and we assume perhaps back to Rhosgobel when he says he shall "turn back at once"). Gandalf tells him to alert his friends, and he again races off as if the "Nine were after him." This might not tell much, other than Radagast is frightened of the Nazgul, and thus he's probably frightened of Sauron's power as well. Still being a good-intentioned person, and his love for his bird friends is enough to get him to listen to Gandalf, but he doesn't have much courage.

The other things that can be picked up about Radagast comes from Gandalf and Saruman. You can often learn things about a character from what other characters say about him/her. The problem is, what other characters say must be measured with some perspective and the biases of the character "reporting."

First, Gandalf:

"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 friend."

I don't doubt Gandalf's words here, because he's an honest and reliable character for the reader to glean information from. However, we also know his extreme humility, he often underestimates his own power, and in doing so he's able to keep his own pride and ego in check. Is it possible, Gandalf just didn't want to bad-mouth someone he would view as a friend, a colleague? I think so. He would be speaking true about Radagast's expertise and knowledge, but Gandalf isn't someone who scoffs at, mocks, or trashes the abilities of other characters, especially if he views them as a friend.

Saruman, is the exact opposite:

Radagast the Brown!" laughed Saruman, and he no longer concealed his scorn. "Radagast the Bird-tamer! Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool! Yet he has just the wit to play the part that I set him."

Saruman is of course, a liar and a traitor, and he rarely hides his disdain for Gandalf's "toys"...he mocks Gandalf for smoking pipe-weed, he mocks Gandalf's fondness of the Shire and hobbits. He mocks Radagast's worthiness as a wizard. (It just so happens that nearly everything Saruman mocks comes back to bite him in the end ).

Still, there is probably truth to Saruman's scorn for Radagast here. Saruman played him, there's no other way around it, he deceived Radagast and got him to send Gandalf to Orthanc, completely unawares of Saruman's treachery. The weak thread Saruman left was not anticipating Gandalf would tell Radagast to alert his friends, and thus not planning for the fooled Radagast still being an honest wizard. An honest wizard he is, but "a Fool" he might be too...there's no reason there can't be a bit of truth to how both Gandalf and Saruman describe Radagast.

I think with the characterization in the films, most seem to be strictly looking at Gandalf's words and determining Jackson got it so obviously wrong, because Radagast was a "worthy wizard." But as slight as the evidence is, this overlooks the "other half," that comes from Saruman. And simply because he's turned completely evil, does not mean he is automatically wrong.

Originally Posted by 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.

In Rateliff's review of the movie, he notes the humor in having Radagast just drop out of the film and disappear, as he does in LOTR. Although, I think we'll be seeing more Radagast in the other films, so I am interested to see what they do with him...or how they explain what winds up happening to Radagast. Even if it is personally funny and fitting to just have him disappear completely.

[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.

[Rhod the Red]

Is it possible, Gandalf just didn't want to bad-mouth someone he would view as a friend, a colleague?

He was willing to badmouth his own superior, Saruman, both to Frodo & at the Council of Elrond (a public dissing). His restraint from criticism wasn't 100%.

[Rhod the Red]

he is just not like that at all

We know next to nothing about him, certainly nothing about his private life. Two wizards are portrayed in having private lives that included smoking, how do you know he wouldn't do the same thing?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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.

That would all depend on which text you wish to believe. In his letters, Tolkien speculated on their failure:

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #211

I really do not know anything clearly about the other two [the Blue Wizards, Alatar and Pallando ] I think they went as emissaries to distant regions, East and South, far out of Númenorian range. What success they had I do not know ; but I fear that they failed, as Saruman did, though doubtless in different ways; and I suspect they were founders of or beginners of secret cults and "magic" traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron.

Sauron was certainly strong enough to unleash an eastern legion against Dale and Erebor, and also came with strength against Galadriel and Thranduil. He had an incredibly huge army of reserves waiting at the Morannon to face the Captains of the West. Had the ring not been destroyed, had Frodo not been bitten by Gollum after he claimed the Ring, had the Nazgul returned in triumph to Barad-dur with the Ring in their grasp and Frodo their prisoner, Aragorn's little army would have been annihilated and the West would have been utterly destroyed. I don't see much help from the Blue Wizards, given these circumstances. Conjecture is fun, but the facts dictate that the fate of the West rested totally with the destruction of the Ring at that precise moment.