If I never see another name that
starts with an “H”, it won’t be long enough, sorry Ms. Howard, Ms. Heinstercamp, Mr. Herold, Mr. Harrison, Coach Harris,
Hoffman, Heimlich………..hee heee. Thank goodness Beowulf started with a “B”, or
else my grade would have been a ‘C’, ‘D’, or ‘F’. I know, I know, I still don’t
know my alphabet, but who needs it when everything starts with an ‘H’, you know
you can spell half of any word.
I have to agree with Josh, before
reading Beowulf, I had very high
expectations of the difficulty and complexity of the language. I expected it to
be riddled with figurative language and hidden meaning. Instead, the epic poem
was simple and straight forward, more prose like, than beautiful, complex
poetry. Granted, the original was composed of extremely strict structure and
rules, but the kenning and alliteration were not quite as impactful as I
imagine they would be their original language, Anglo-Saxon. The plot itself,
was considerably formulaic, with three pieces, but the descriptions and action
were engaging and poetic.
Beowulf’s descent into Grendel’s
mother’s underwater lair has the most captivating imagery. The most dull
moments are when Beowulf is recounting his tale for the zillionth time to
someone. The history and side plots, while enriching the world and values of
heroes and drawing good parallels to the story, were boring, and often somewhat
hard to follow, because no one is someone without their roots and revenge is
extracted back and forth, time and again.
It was interesting to see the
conflict between pagan and Christian values, unfold, because while the story
was set in a pagan land and time, the author was a Christian from another time
and place. Proper etiquette and formalities dragged the story a tad bit, though
they added to the authenticity of the narrative. I wasn’t all to taken by the
story and writing, though I greatly admire the language use and easy flow of
poetry, as well as the culture of the times that was conveyed.
Reading Beowulf reminded me of
reading Shakespeare, because though the translation gives you a clear
insightful summary and meaning, the original has so many other elements aside
from the direct definition, that add depth to the story, which the translation
lacks. While I certainly would not be happy at the prospect of having to learn
a whole new language to read a book for English, I feel that a lot is lost in
translation that would have helped me appreciate the piece more, such as hearing it as
is was meant to be, orally in Anglo-Saxon.
I agree with your final point, though to us such a rendition would sound more like noise! Great post--you make some very good points about the tension between the original people the work was about and the different people in a different time and place who wrote the work down. It is a pretty remarkably straightforward story, which is likely because many storytellers would have known the basic tale, then spun it in their own way, adding their own embellishments. It's a shame we only have one version of this story to experience, because it was the one that happened to be written down.
ReplyDelete