[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

A character who turns from good to evil and back has exhausted their narrative potential - you can hardly write anything more interesting about them to top that, so they're best written out of the story; and in an adventure story set in a heroic age, how better to accomplish this than by having them slain.

I think this is probably the issue. There don't seem to be any characters that start out evil, depending on how you count orcs. An orc turning good would have been a bit odd, I suppose. So you're stuck, in a narrative sense.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But in Middle-earth it's not simply a case of hoping to be redeemed for your sins, you have to achieve your purpose in life in order to attain real grace.

Which, I suppose, would make the 'failing' of the wizards more profound. They 'knew' their purpose, or at least had an idea of their general mission, and only one of them actually seemed to care enough to carry it through. I suppose they all started out fully intending to fight Sauron, but one thing after another drove it out of their minds.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Definitely harsh for Radagast who is more environmentally and animal-loving conscious than the other wizards, but nope...still fails.

Failing and falling aren't always the same, really. And I think Radagast is the perfect example to look at in some detail on this point. He failed, but did he 'fall'?

Originally Posted by Letters of JRR Tolkien #156

"The wizards were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement)."
(Emphasis mine)

The use of 'fully' here is an interesting one. Perhaps Tolkien didn't want to call Radagast a complete failure as he clearly had no ill intent and indeed was willing to help, his biggest failings being trusting the wrong people (though even Gandalf trusted Saruman, so perhaps he is guilty of the same 'mistakes of judgement'), and a shift of priorities to the birds and animals rather than the sentient peoples.
Indeed, as I've read around the subject of Radagast, I do get the impression Tolkien was not quite sure what to do with the fellow. In The History of Middle Earth Part 7, 'The Treason of Isengard, in the fourth chapter as Tolkien struggles to get Gandalf away to see Saruman, he introduces Radagast to 'solve the problem', as it were. CT gives an endnote;

Originally Posted by HoME7 The Treason of Isengard Chapter 4 endnote 15

"Radagast as been named, but no more, in previous texts (VI 379, 397) and with no indication of what part my father was envisaging for him."

Poor Radagast got roped into the narrative, and such seems his actual role, being roped into helping Saruman. His 'betrayal' of Gandalf was unintentional, as was his 'betrayal' of Saruman (inadvertently giving Gandalf a means of escape). He bumbles his way through his 'task', so I fear Tolkien couldn't quite bring himself to be too harsh on him.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Note that Radagast did not seem unhappy or anything

However, another point to consider is the only scene in which Radagast appears there is a great sense of his unease. Perhaps he is uneasy at the news, the dark times, or the fact that he has a job to do at all.

Originally Posted by The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 2, chapter 2: The Council of Elrond

"It was Radagast the Brown, who at one time dwelt at Rhosgobel, near the boarders of Mirkwood. He is one of my order, but I had not seen him in many a year.
...
'...You were never a traveller, unless driven by great need.' [said Gandalf]
'I have an urgent errand,' [Radagast] said. 'My news is evil.' Then he looked about him, as if the hedges might have ears. 'Nasgul,' he whispered.
...
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.
...
And with that he mounted and would have ridden straight off.
...
and [Radagast] rode off as if the Nine were after him."

A note on something Tolkien adds in an earlier draft...

Originally Posted by HoME7 The Treason of Isengard Chapter 6, The Council of Elrond

"And with that [Radagast] he mounted and rode off without another word - and that seemed to me very strange."

Here Gandalf notes that Radagast's haste to depart is strange. I wonder how strange, and in what way. Is it out of character for him? Another endnote (where Radagast seems to spend a lot of his time) makes for interesting reading...

Originally Posted by HoME7 The Treason of Isengard Chapter 6, The Council of Elrond, endnote 30

"... it is seen from the addition that Radagast first entered the story as the means by which Gandalf was lured to Saruman's dwelling. The abrupt haste of Radagast's departure seemed to Gandalf 'very strange', and it is possible that when first drafting the story my father supposed that Radagast's part was not simply that of innocent emissary: later, at Isengard, Saruman says 'He must have played his part well, nonetheless'. This is not in FR. When the addition here was made, Radagast became also the means by which the Eagles knew where to find Gandalf; and this development necessarily disposed of the idea that Radagast had been corrupted..."

So Radagast was not corrupted. Saruman may have been right, he was simply foolish. He had nothing to 'repent' of, as such.
Though I'm now slightly curious about the mentions of Rhosgobel as being Radagast's 'former' residents. Presumably he moved after the... incident... with the Necromancer. He was never much of a traveller, so presumably he has a new house. I hope it was a nice house.

Anyway, I get the impression Tolkien did not consider Radagast a complete failure, and, indeed, initially planned to reward him!

Originally Posted by HoME7 The Treason of Isengard, Chapter 11, The Story Foreseen from Moria

"Isengard is given over to the Dwarves... Or to Radagast?"

Personally, I think that would have been brilliant, for Radagast to end up with this gigantic tower. He'd probably turn it into a massive greenhouse.
However, ultimately, Radagast seems to be regarded as a bit dim by those on the evil side, so perhaps they saw him as not worth turning...

Originally Posted by HoME10, Morgoth's Ring, Part five - Myths Transformed, note on motives

"But certainly he [Sauron] had already become evil, and therefore stupid enough to imagine that his [Gandalf's] different behaviour was due simply to weaker intelligence, and lack of firm, masterful purpose. He was only a rather clever Radagast - clever, because it is more profitable (more productive of power) to become absorbed in the study of people than of animals."

Radagast 'failed' in the sense that he did not "remain faithful".

Originally Posted by Unfinished Tales - Part 4, Chapter 2 The Istari

Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful, and he was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle Earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures.

I don't know if you can call Radagast a 'fallen' character, and certainly not evil. He seems vaguely good, but mostly neutral. He doesn't commit to either side. He doesn't openly fight Sauron unless given strict orders. He doesn't really help the enemy except by accident, and the same accident repays it, though who knows if he ever knew it?

Originally Posted by Inziladun

However, as I recall other threads here discussing at times, his actions, relating to his apparently being chosen to go along to Middle-earth by Yavanna, as a representative of her interests, could have been foreseen by the Valar.

I can buy this. Although, Tolkien seems to suggest that he 'failed' or 'forsook' the task set before him. unless Yavanna had given him a secondary task which he then took as his main task. But he was 'enamoured' of Middle Earth. Interestingly, he found Middle Earth more enamouring than Valinor. Perhaps it was all too clean and neat over there for his liking. I always imagined him being a bit shabby-looking.

Originally Posted by Alfirin

For example, in some bizarre world where 1. Saruman had NOT become corrupted and 2. I was he, and not Gandalf, who wound up taking center stage in the deafeat of Sauron, I would imagine that that, since he is of Aule, defeat of Sauron would have come largely through mechanical methods; making a free people who could literally "out tech" Sauron (a tough order given that Sauron himself is originally one of Aule's servant's but possibly not impossible).

Interesting notion. Aule wasn't good at having none-evil maiar, was he?
Though it does make me wonder why there was so little interaction between Saruman and the Dwarves. Perhaps there was and it is not mentioned; Saruman wanted to learn about Ringcraft, so perhaps he talked to the Dwarves and tried to find some of their Rings of power?

Going back to a 'fallen' character, here's a thing I stumbled upon; in an earlier plan, Tolkien asks...

Originally Posted by HoME7 The Treason of Isengard Chapter 11, The Story Foreseen from Moria

"What about Boromir? Does he repent? No - slain by Aragorn."

Tolkien paints Boromir as someone who needed to 'repent'. His character was in such need that he almost had him killed by Aragorn, becoming such a threat to the Fellowship, perhaps, that he had to be stopped.