Radagast in The Hobbit Film (SPOILERS)

[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.

[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.

[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.