# What was Radagast’s fate?



## Alcuin (Aug 5, 2006)

What do you think became of Radagast?


----------



## Maeglin (Aug 5, 2006)

There are countless threads on this topic. Check the links thread.


----------



## Alcuin (Aug 5, 2006)

Of course. This is purely for fun. If it is a problem or offensive, the mods can remove it.

Did you vote, Maeglin, or will you abstain?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 6, 2006)

The fourth option seems the most convincing to me


----------



## Maeglin (Aug 6, 2006)

I voted, and also went for the fourth option. It just makes lots of sense. Why _wouldn't_ he sit around eating Ben and Jerry's?


----------



## Valandil (Aug 6, 2006)

Awwww...

You don't have an "Offed by Saruman once he had served his purpose"


----------



## Ermundo (Aug 6, 2006)

A tough question... I'm afraid I'd have to go with opiton 4, the most reasonable choice by far. I will give whoever made the poll a point for originality, I mean, being a moth, c'mon.


----------



## Persephone (Aug 6, 2006)

I voted that he is still in Middle-Earth, eating Ben and Jerry's (particularly Cherry Garcia Low Fat Frozen Yogurt, yummmmmm!).

Yes, morgoththe1, I agree that this poll is very original. Radagast the Moth, Saruman the worm, Palando the beetle, Alatar the stick insect, and Gandalf the cockroach.


----------



## YayGollum (Aug 6, 2006)

I went for the last option, of course. Since I figure him to be a bit anti-social, he would have just dropped his clothes and floated in creepy and invisible spirit form back to that Valinor place, if he felt like it. No elf boats for him! I didn't wish to vote for either of the death options, since he was cool and didn't even bother anybody. I didn't go for the fourth one, since he doesn't seem to be the type to do such things. Far too popular for him! The last makes sense, except for the moth part. I'd figure that if he had been given the choice to take the form of something in his nature, instead of the old dude, which all of the wizard types had to take, I guess, he would stick around as a giant heron.


----------



## Firawyn (Aug 8, 2006)

I agree, he'd definaltly be eating Ben and Jerry's, but no way low fat...he's not a man of dieting, I don't think! lol.  

This is probobly why he never went to the Grey Havens...no Ben and Jerry's in the West!!


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Aug 8, 2006)

Mmmmmmmh Ben and Jerry's good! Especially Peanut Butter Cup flavor


----------



## Ermundo (Aug 9, 2006)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Mmmmmmmh Ben and Jerry's good! Especially Peanut Butter Cup flavor





How would YOU know, your an elf, smart one.


----------



## Firawyn (Aug 9, 2006)

OUCH! Busted! Nice one morgoth...you said man.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 9, 2006)

Ben & Jerry undoubtedly makes good stuff — BUT — NOBODY but Häagen-Dasz makes _*RUM RAISIN!!!*_ *YUM YUM!!!* I'm going out to get some RIGHT NOW!    

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (Aug 9, 2006)

Barley have you ever seen City Slickers?


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 10, 2006)

I always thought he went 'Rip Van Winkle" and fell asleep under a tree until he got all covered with moss and became basically a part of the forest, all in the name of communing with nature.

But that being said, he makes a really cool moth.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 10, 2006)

Here's one credible speculation:

*What happened to Radagast?*

Radagast was said to also have failed his mission, but it's tempting to think that his "failure" was not as bad as that of the others. The Essay on 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." (UT, p. 390)

Radagast certainly never became evil. The above quote suggests, however, that his mission was not just to relate to wild creatures but also to build bridges between them and Elves and Men. He did, in fact, have his friends the birds gather much information, but since they were reporting to Saruman as the head of the Council that wasn't altogether helpful. On the other hand, it has often been suggested (though there is no direct textual evidence of any kind) that the way Eagles kept showing up at opportune times may have been partially his work.

Source: http://tolkien.cro.net/else/radagast.html

Barley


----------



## Alcuin (Aug 10, 2006)

Thank you, Barley!

Radagast became “distracted.” He certainly wasn’t evil, and he remained honest, as Gandalf noted on more than one occasion. He had a good reputation, as Beorn (the character, not the mod) admitted to Gandalf. And the fortuitous appearances of the Eagles of the Misty Mountains are interesting, aren’t they? 

Gandalf also says that “Radagast is … 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 Istari were sent in the guise of old Men; but Radagast, perhaps, had decided on occasion to dispense with that limitation. So maybe he was from time to time breaking “The Rules” that governed the actions of the Istari as well.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 10, 2006)

Alcuin said:


> Thank you, Barley!



You're most welcome!

"...it has often been suggested (though there is no direct textual evidence of any kind) that the way Eagles kept showing up at opportune times may have been partially his work."

I am more inclined to think that this was Tolkien's use of the _deus ex machina,_ a dramatic device that was used by ancient Greek dramatists. I'll let our readers have the fun of googling some more info on that.  It is the _only_ instance I can think of in modern literature where it was used with actual practical success. At its worst, it is just a cheap weasely way of getting a character out of a bad situation, where a bad author can think of no better way to rescue the poor slob.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (Aug 10, 2006)

HLGStrider said:


> I always thought he went 'Rip Van Winkle" and fell asleep under a tree until he got all covered with moss and became basically a part of the forest, all in the name of communing with nature.



Wow, that reminds me of Captain Davy Jones and the way his crew molds to the Flying Dutchman...creepy!


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 11, 2006)

Except trees aren't as slimey. . .

I think there are differing levels of dues ex machina. Gollum falling into the volcano due to a trip is one too. You could argue that Tolkien used this one as an example of the powers for work for good as well as evil, and I think it has been argued very successfully in other places, but that isn't the topic here, so I'm just going to mention it and if any one else wants to look into the old threads, more power to them.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 11, 2006)

HLGStrider said:


> I think there are differing levels of dues ex machina. Gollum falling into the volcano due to a trip is one too. You could argue that Tolkien used this one as an example of the powers for work for good as well as evil, and I think it has been argued very successfully in other places...



As I understand it, _deus ex machina_ is a solution that gets the good guy out of trouble, and not the bad guy into it (as with Gollum in the volcano): 

_"An unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, esp. as a contrived plot device in a play or novel."_ (Oxford Dictionary, 2nd Ed.); _"1. A god introduced into a play to resolve the entanglements of the plot. 2. Any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot."_ (Random House Unabridged, 2nd Ed.) 

Hence the Eagles flying in to save the day as first seen in the Battle of Five Armies, and the battle in front of the Morannon, or the sheriff's posse riding in at the last second to save the day, as in countless B westerns. 

There is also the tendency of bad authors, when self-painted into a corner, to come up with some last-minute lame ploy that "saves the day." Gollum's fate was foreseen by Tolkien from the outset, and was an integral and necessary element of the saga. Nothing "deus" about it. 

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 11, 2006)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Gollum's fate was foreseen by Tolkien from the outset, and was an integral and necessary element of the saga. Nothing "deus" about it.


I kindly disagree:


Letter #192 said:


> Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said).


More generally, Laws and Customs of the Eldar, and the Atrabeth, both state that everything depends on Eru, at every moment, including the actions of His creations.


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 11, 2006)

> As I understand it, _deus ex machina_ is a solution that gets the good guy out of trouble, and not the bad guy into it (as with Gollum in the volcano):


 
I think it got almost all the good guys out of trouble because it stopped Sauron from pouncing on the ring last minute. It's like an anticlimatic moment where the bad guy is standing on the edge of the cliff cackling at the conquered good guys about how he's won, he's won, and nothing can stop him. MU HA HA HA! When he trips over the hem of his long, flowing, all so awesome purple robe and falls over backwards into nothingness.


----------



## Firawyn (Aug 11, 2006)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> _"An unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, esp. as a contrived plot device in a play or novel."_ (Oxford Dictionary, 2nd Ed.); _"1. A god introduced into a play to resolve the entanglements of the plot. 2. Any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot."_ (Random House Unabridged, 2nd Ed.)
> 
> of the saga. Nothing "deus" about it.
> 
> Barley




Do you have those books? *grumbles* Man, I'd kill for a look at your personal library...


----------



## Alcuin (Aug 11, 2006)

The expression _deus ex machina_, although Latin, comes from the habit of Greek playwrights having gods enter their plays by lowering the actors portraying the gods onto the stage by means of a rope and pulley. It translates as “god from a machine.” This plot device was sometimes used to extricate the characters in the play from one problem or another, often toward the end of the drama.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 11, 2006)

Firawyn said:


> Do you have those books? *grumbles* Man, I'd kill for a look at your personal library...



The Oxford is actually a part of every Mac owner's operating system: it comes as a part of OS X, and is instantly available with one click of the mouse. The Random Unabridged (which weighs 13 pounds) squats at the ready upon my desk, and is consulted frequently by my wife and myself. 

As for my _library_ — *sigh* — if I still had all the books I've at one time or another over the long years given away; were borrowed and never returned; sold to bookstores; tossed out, we'd both be living out on our balcony or up on the roof... 

And Alcuin: an excellent definition of the original "deus!" 

Thorondor: You're taking a kind of "second-level meta-view" there. If I understand you correctly, you're taking Tolkien's letter to mean that Eru was the ultimate control, and that everything that transpired was the expression of his desire. But _Tolkien created Eru_ (the "first-level meta-view"), who is yet _another character_ in Tolkien's saga. That's sub- and not full creation, m'boy! 

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 12, 2006)

Barley, m'boy  , what part of the definition of act of God (or deus ex machina if you will) doesn't Gollum's fall fulfill? It is clearly an eucatastrophe, and such an event is clearly religious/spiritual in Tolkien's work. There is this passage from the Letters, quite long, that shows, more than most, that Tolkien's works mirrors the religious works of Christianity


Letter #89 said:


> For it I coined the word 'eucatastrophe': the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears (which I argued it is the highest function of fairy-stories to produce). And I was there led to the view that it produces its peculiar effect because it is a sudden glimpse of Truth, your whole nature chained in material cause and effect, the chain of death, feels a sudden relief as if a major limb out of joint had suddenly snapped back. It perceives - if the story has literary 'truth' on the second plane (for which see the essay) - that this is indeed how things really do work in the Great World for which our nature is made. And I concluded by saying that the Resurrection was the greatest 'eucatastrophe' possible in the greatest Fairy Story - and produces that essential emotion: Christian joy which produces tears because it is qualitatively so like sorrow, because it comes from those places where Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love. Of course I do not mean that the Gospels tell what is only a fairy-story; but I do mean very strongly that they do tell a fairy-story: the greatest.


If we are looking at the "first level meta view" (I am not sure what it means), we could also note that writting in itself, being a means of communing with God, is also a manifestation of His grace - I would bring into discussion the famous dialogue between Tolkien and Lewis:


Part Four: 1925-1949 “In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit” said:


> But, said Lewis, myths are lies, even though lies breathed through silver. No, said Tolkien, they are not. And, indicating the great trees of Magdalen Grove as their branches bent in the wind, he struck out a different line of argument.
> 
> You call a tree a tree, he said, and you think nothing more of the word. But it was not a ‘tree’ until someone gave it that name. You call a star a star, and say it is just a ball of matter moving on a mathematical course. But that is merely how you see it. By so naming things and describing them you are only inventing your own terms about them. And just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth.
> 
> We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, [while materialistic ‘progress’ leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil.]


----------



## Alcuin (Aug 12, 2006)

“Acts of Eru” (in Tolkien’s Legendarium) do not count as _deus ex machina_. The concept of _eucastrophe_ is quite outside its scope: only semantics and a tendentious _argumentum ad minutiae infinitum_ can make it so, and then only by exasperating the opposition: and that is not victory, but opprobrium. _Deus ex machina_ is a literary plot device that, as Barley observes, is generally regarded as a “tendency of bad authors, when self-painted into a corner, to come up with some last-minute lame ploy.” The death of Gollum was fore-ordained. In Letter 246, Tolkien remarks that had Gollum repented of evil, he would still have stolen the Ring, and then


> ‘possession’ satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo’s sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.


This is not _deus ex machina_ but “fate,” if you care to call it that.

The intervention of Athena in the battle between Hector and Achilles (definitely not the Brad Pitt movie version) in which Athena deceived Hector into believing that his weapons-bearer was at hand with a second spear is also not _deus ex machina_; but had Aphrodite appeared and dazzled Achilles before he struck the killing blow, causing him and all the Greeks to make peace and sail home: that might count as _deus ex machina_. When Castor and Pollux appear at the end of Euripides’ _Electra_ to set everything right after Electra has committed matricide, that definitely counts as _deus ex machina_, and is a classic example. For all his fame, Euripides made a habit of using this plot device and was ridiculed for it in his own lifetime.

Euripides and Socrates were friends; in fact, some Athenians accused (that is the correct word, I believe) Socrates of having written or helped write some of Euripides’ plays. Another famous Greek playwright and contemporary, Aristophanes, scorched them both in his wildly satiric (and funny) play, _The Clouds_. (Click it and have a look! Hint: search for “basket” in the text.) Aristophanes portrays Socrates as an impious windbag and skewers Euripides as a bad playwright when he lowers “Socrates” onto the stage in a basket à la _deus ex machina_ to the approving roar of Athenian audiences. I was taught that Euripides was enraged and stormed out, but that Socrates laughed heartily: it is an example of _deus ex machina _by means of satire.

_Catastrophe_ and _Eucastrophe_ are the inevitable outcome of a series of events. Both may come as a complete surprise to the participants, but in retrospect, there was no other course that could follow. _Deus ex machina_, however, is “out of the blue,” and there was no way that an audience could anticipate it except by harboring a poor opinion of the author. In that sense, the destruction of the Ring and the ruin of Sauron and all his works, propitiously timed as it was to preserve the Host of the West and thus the Happy Ending – the _Eucastrophe_ – of _The Lord of the Rings_ is the outcome of one step after another in the plotline: it came down to Frodo’s success or failure, and he failed in that the ring overpowered him: but so did Gollum, who had dogged him for two-thirds of the tale to the same inevitable end; and so also did Sauron, though we see him only in the barest glimpses. 

The Eagles as they did twice in _The Hobbit_ appear twice out of nowhere in _The Lord of the Rings_, to perform the same functions as in _The Hobbit_:
remove Gandalf from a sticky situation in a high spot from which he could not otherwise escape, and
turn the final tide of a battle that would otherwise have been lost,
and so Tolkien is somtimes criticized for using _deus ex machina_. But it seems so small an offense when compared to the greater tale: perhaps we should overlook it? Or perhaps it has some other meaning that we have overlooked? The Hand – or Grace – of Eru medially through Manwë and thence by the Eagles to preserve the righteous upon the brink of destruction? Is that _deus ex machina_ or salvation?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 12, 2006)

> Catastrophe and Eucastrophe are the inevitable outcome of a series of events.


I disagree (emphasis mine):


On fairy stories said:


> The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, *the sudden* joyous “turn” (for there is no true end to any fairy-tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy-stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially “escapist,” nor “fugitive.” In its fairy-tale—or otherworld—setting, it is a *sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure*: *the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance*; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 12, 2006)

Thorondor said:


> I disagree (emphasis mine):



You can disagree — even with emphasis — but that doesn't make your argument correct. 

As for Gollum falling in the soup — it sure wasn't eucatastrophic for _him!_ He simply got what was (at long last!) coming to him! And that's called "just desserts," and well-deserved. A eucatastrophe is something good for _everybody_ — like rain after a drought, for instance, or a god deciding _not_ to destroy humankind.

And _eucatastrophe_ and _deus ex machina_ are apples and oranges. 

Since we are forbidden to discuss religion in general (and a full answer to Thorondor's responses would lead me there), I can only say this about "full" versus Tolkien's concept of "sub" creation: We have Reality, allegedly created by a God as described in somebody's holy book (or not), which is "full creation." Then one of the creatures of that creation (JRR f'rinstance) decides to write a book in which he creates fictional creatures, including the God of his subcreated world whom he calls Eru. That's what Tolkien calls subcreation. Then one of the fictional characters writes a book about other characters, and we have possibly "sub-subcreation," and this process could go on and on like so many nested Russian dolls. But the only part of it that really exists is the creature Tolkien, who belongs to Reality. The rest are nested dreams (Indian thought systems go into nested dreams and nested realities quite thoroughly, enough to boggle the mind of any unwary Western thinker). To take an overview of this entire situation is the meta (over)-view, also known as being objective. 

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 12, 2006)

> As for Gollum falling in the soup — it sure wasn't eucatastrophic for _him!_ He simply got what was (at long last!) coming to him! And that's called "just desserts," and well-deserved. A eucatastrophe is something good for _everybody_ — like rain after a drought, for instance, or a god deciding _not_ to destroy humankind.


Under most, if not all, circumstances, there will always be someone who believes that what actually happened isn't the best for him/her. The Authority could think otherwise (and I could quote the letters stating that divine punishments are also divine blessings, due to the supreme inventinveness of the Creator) - but, as Pacino stated, "free will...it's a bitch" (if I may say so).


> You can disagree — even with emphasis — but that doesn't make your argument correct.


Ok, let's have another go at it:


Alcuin said:


> Catastrophe and Eucastrophe are the inevitable outcome of a series of events.


Tolkien stated (see my previous post) that the eucatastrophe is sudden, miraculous, cannot be counted on to occur, it does not deny the possibility of failure and it even occurs in the face of much (adverse I would say) evidence. All these descriptions refute Alcuin's statement that the eucatastrophe is inevitable - it is its uncertainty that brings about "the fleeting glimps of joy" when it actually occurs. If eucatastrophe is inevitable, then the dyscatastrophe is impossible, but this is refuted by Tolkien. It would not make for a good fairy story .


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 12, 2006)

Thorondor_ said:


> Under most, if not all, circumstances, there will always be someone who believes that what actually happened isn't the best for him/her. The Authority could think otherwise (and I could quote the letters stating that divine punishments are also divine blessings, due to the supreme inventinveness of the Creator) - but, as Pacino stated, "free will...it's a bitch" (if I may say so).



I prefer to take the story at face value as it presents itself. Gollum finally got what was coming to him, in spades. That's justice. The Eagles showed up at just the right times to save the day. That's _deus ex machina._ Ultimately, everything fell out just as Eru intended. That's Tolkien.

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 12, 2006)

Barley, I am curious, why do you believe that "eucatastrophe is something good for _everybody_"? After all, this term was coined by Tolkien, and I found no such refference.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 13, 2006)

Thorondor_ said:


> Barley, I am curious, why do you believe that "eucatastrophe is something good for _everybody_"? After all, this term was coined by Tolkien, and I found no such reference.



That's my understanding of how he employs the term:

*Letter #89:*

"... at the story of the little boy (which is a fully attested fact of course) with its apparent sad ending and then its sudden unhoped-for happy ending, I was deeply moved and had that peculiar emotion we all have – though not often. It is quite unlike any other sensation. And all of a sudden I realized what it was: the very thing that I have been trying to write about and explain – in that fairy-story essay that I so much wish you had read that I think I shall send it to you. For it I coined the word 'eucatastrophe': _the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears_ [emphasis mine] (which I argued it is the highest function of fairy-stories to produce)."

If that kind of experience is not good for everybody, then I don't know what is.

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 13, 2006)

I see; I maintain my opinion that for every event, there will be someone unhappy about it. Moreover, some people even lack the capacity to enjoy this ... joy, due to their particular sensibility. I doubt that Tolkien expected everyone to feel this emotion, seeing how even he is very surprised by the success of the Hobbit or LotR.


----------



## Alcuin (Aug 13, 2006)

Thorondor_ said:


> ...I maintain my opinion that for every event, there will be someone unhappy about it. Moreover, some people even lack the capacity to enjoy this ... joy, due to their particular sensibility...


You may be correct. But in Arda, that would be attributed to the “Morgoth-element” in one who cannot or will not enjoy the happiness of another (if it is not derived from evil, as the “happiness” of a felon might be when he has first committed his crime and before he is caught or punished): jealousy, covetousness, or just plain malice.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 13, 2006)

Alcuin said:


> You may be correct. But in Arda, that would be attributed to the “Morgoth-element” in one who cannot or will not enjoy the happiness of another (if it is not derived from evil, as the “happiness” of a felon might be when he has first committed his crime and before he is caught or punished): jealousy, covetousness, or just plain malice.


I agree - that makes very much sense.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 13, 2006)

Thorondor_ said:


> I see; I maintain my opinion that for every event, there will be someone unhappy about it. Moreover, some people even lack the capacity to enjoy this ... joy, due to their particular sensibility. I doubt that Tolkien expected everyone to feel this emotion, seeing how even he is very surprised by the success of the Hobbit or LotR.



That may be. However, that doesn't mean that the experience wouldn't be good for them!

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 13, 2006)

On the objective level - yes.


----------



## Firawyn (Aug 13, 2006)

Are you boys getting off topic already?   



Barley said:


> Ultimately, everything fell out just as Eru intended. That's Tolkien.



Thats God. I know Tolkien never intended Middle Earth to be an allagory (I wrote a paper on this I think) but either way it often seems to pan out that way.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 13, 2006)

Firawyn said:


> That's God.



Forbidden to comment.  

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 13, 2006)

Firawyn said:


> Thats God.


Yes, I agree to a point; as I argued and quoted previously, myth making is for Tolkien a manifestation of a divine relation.


----------



## Firawyn (Aug 13, 2006)

*grin* Sorry Barley, I couldn't help it...you set me up for that comment. What else could I do? 



@Thor: Try speaking with words I don't have to go look up! *grin* Not that I don't have a big vocab but man - I had to acctaully think about what you were saying there! Lol. ..._manifestation of a divine relation_...nicely put. Poetry almost...


----------

