Sounds like it should be called "Browulf." 😆 I remember people being quite unhappy when this came out. I read the Heaney translation in high school and college and enjoyed it. I want to check out Tolkien's translation of it someday too.
Ha, Browulf, that's perfect! I completely missed the buzz around this translation coming out! And apparently the Tolkien translation was never published and abandoned, but his son later edited it and released it after Tolkien's death. I really want to read that translation now too!
I have only read Seamus Heaney's translation, but I am planning on reading more translations because I find them fascinating (both the original story and the artistic choices that are made when translating). A woman at a bookstore recommended this translation here to me and said she really enjoyed it. I'm not put off by the modern slang she uses because that's all part of the fun of translations for me, but knowing that maybe she "retold" parts of the story with a specific goal to not reflect the text rather than just translating them is a bit of a bummer. I have a reservation about that, but I'll hold off on further judgement until I get to read it for myself too.
First of all I love Beowulf. Great story. Great visuals. I have great memories analyzing it in school. Secondly, bro? For real? No! I’m not accepting that lol -Joe
Idk how i stumbled across this video but the translation is hilarious. In my part of the world I've never heard someone say "bro" unironicly so it stumbles at the first hurdle. The premise of using simple english is reasonable but the execution is arrogant. Im sure some academic bubbles could circlejerk themselves enough into explaining why the translation is good in theory but if it does not pass a red face test for a significant chunk of english speakers, you've failed as a translator.
the bro translation is so funny to me 😂 like they talked about that in one the oldest books ever 🤣 "he was the man" haha, I get it that translation is not good!
Interesting video - I liked hearing your thoughts on why Headley's translation didn't work for you. I quite like Headley's translation, though it's not my personal favorite, and thought I'd offer some completely unsolicited thoughts! You're definitely right that it's better to think of it as an "adaptation" rather than a "direct translation." I think what she does well is actually highlight, through translating it into a kind of modern oral vernacular, many of the problems that the poem posits which have been completely lost on so many other translators (including Tolkien and Heaney): that of Beowulf being a kind of problematic and monstrous hero whom the narrator is sympathetic towards though quite wary, that of Grendel's Mother being entirely sympathetic and following the legal protocols laid out in the poem concerning feud and thus clearly not a "monster" in the way that she is in Heaney's translation (he makes tons of outright translation mistakes in that section specifically -- Beowulf absolutely takes on the role as Grendel as he invades her "sele," her hall, without any legal, or moral really, reasoning. The Old English makes this parallelism between Grendel invading Heorot and Beowulf invading Grendel's Mother's liar more explicit than any of the "translations"), and that of the mythical ethos of all of these characters who are quite foreign in terms of religion/culture/geography to the Beowulf-poet when he's writing the poem. The Beowulf-poet himself, as you noted, is almost certainly drawing on an older oral story and while he does retain, as Tolkien points out, a purposefully archaic diction (which is why the poem is so difficult to translate -- you basically need to learn the Old English of the 10th century AND THEN learn the Old English of Beowulf as so much of its language is sui generis), he was also interpolating and adapting the pagan story for his contemporary Christian audience, either in the 7th or 10th century depending which dating you agree with. Headley, by going against the precedents established by other translation, actually recovers in many ways more of the original poem than many of her predecessors. Heaney's translation, for what it's worth, isn't really known for its fidelity to the original. It's fine by most accounts and it's the one I use to teach, but that's more because of its accessibility rather than it's closeness to the original. His "So" for "hwæt" sort of fits, even though it's not a direct translation (hwæt is simply the interrogative pronoun, "what," but here it's less of a word and more of an aural call-to-attention -- saying the word sounds like someone clearing their throat). Likewise, Headley's "Bro" sort of fits because that's how so many people, especially young people, begin long epic stories! Apologies for the super long comment. I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this translation and I thought I might offer some more context to Headley's (if nothing else) bold adaptation of a beautiful poem. EDIT: completely agree with you about the ending though - Headley losses all the nuance of the ending. The last word in the poem "lof-geornost" ("most eager for glory/fame" is a good translation) is perhaps the most important word in the poem and forces us to reconsider everything Beowulf did. In the end, he wasn't "the man," unless you mean that in like a pejorative toxic masculinity sense. In the end, he did everything for personal fame and achieved that even as he inadvertently led to the Geats being completely annihilated.
Wow, you know so much more then I do! I still don't like Headley's translation personally, but I understand the choices she made more now due to your comment. I can't imagine having to translate such a difficult text like Beowulf!
@@AnneEWilliamson It certainly has a unique aesthetic that won't work for everyone - I don't love it by any means, but I like the idea of she was trying to do. Listening to Beowulf is definitely one of the best ways to enjoy the poem though and I enjoyed your thoughts here!
Also, fun thoughts, some comments in here marvel at Heaney's and Tolkien's translations. From an observational standpoint, it seems like women can't make translations and we should keep honoring the white male literary figures that stand as foundations of what we deem as...more worthy and authentic? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Definitely not! Dorothy L. Sayer's translation of Dante's Divine Comedy is considered by many to be the best. And Constance Garnett's translations of many old Russian texts (War and Peace, Fyodor Dostoyevsky's books, etc.) are some of the most popular out there. Perhaps with Beowulf, I have only found good translations by male literary figures, but certainly not with translations in general.
Yeah, I heard about the bro thing and it made me not want to try this translation. I think you might have meant Silence of the girls by Pat Barker there (not Miller's Song of Achilles)
Ouch, that new translation is jarring. There was a "modernized" movie adaptation of Romeo & Juliet that I had to watch in highscool years ago which I felt similarly about. I understand wanting to make something approachable, but when they take it this far it just sounds awful imo. Especially when you have ancient words for names and certain things that are kept the same (as they should be, as that's what we call them still. Beowulf & Geats for example) interspersed between super modern casual words. They would just not be used together in this way when people talk and it sounds forced. That ending especially is horrid!
What a brilliant point! Of course it's good to make old stories relatable to new audiences, but often people go too far. I had a similar experience with a performance of Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare, where the actors ran around in their underwear for half the play, lol. Definitely took away from the complex and layered narrative. I think it is impossible to take classics out of their original setting without drastically changing them, often for the worse.
If the original poem was essentially a tall tale told at keg parties (so to speak) of its own time, then I can understand the use of modern slang to convey the spirit of the original. However, I found the urban slang word choices to be too anachronistic when inserted beside such phrases as "spear Danes," and "war glory." The urban word choices such as "bro" seem to be a conscious effort to make the story multicultural, a contemporary high value within academia. Unfortunately, this tactic distracted me from the meaning of the text, and made the voice and style of the narrator inconsistent. I think Headley's stated goal, to interpret the text for a modern reader, is worthwhile and - at times - it comes across in the text. Unfortunately, I think her not-so-covert agendas - feminist and multicultural retelling of the story - tend to overshadow her stated goal.
So I roughly know the story of Beowulf but right at the start I could've sworm you said he was king of the geeks for some reason. So for a second I was sitting here like wait... something ain't right. King of the geeks? Who did he kill, his bully?
You might give it a quick audio sample listen, or you may hate it too much to, but I went in expecting to hate it and really enjoyed it because it specifically has a spoken word cadence that really works. The stitch & bitch crew kind of all went into the Browulf read for the Hugo award last year with the same impression going in and coming out as well, we we're really surprised.
I'm an English major with an emphasis in rhetoric and composition and a public relations minor. We are reading this in my Mass Communications course. Honestly, never read Beowulf before this.Beowolf in general is difficult. I had no desire to read Beowulf, because it sounded boring. (Beat me with the classic literature books, oh my!) I don't know, I think you might be missing a key point in this. This Beowulf is not just a modern day translation. It's a modern, *cultural* translation. You note about how you think she is putting her ideologies into Beowulf. I agree, but she's doing so in a way that would make the modern, non book loving readers, a chance to, idk, connect with the classics. Why do we have to keep deciphering difficult texts when at some point, there might not even be readers interested in the old variants of Beowulf. Disney doesn't focus on the white maiden in distress anymore, and should they? Additionally, I love the word Bro. Bro allows the Gen Y's and Z's and beyond to recognize a modernist term that helps the broad audience understand the message of the authors intent; to grasp the concepts more easily. To idk, maybe be more interested in old texts? And, Bro is also a modern, *cultural* term, regardless if we regard it as one, Bro... 😂 Gosh, I would love to see an academic (or my future self) use Headley's translation in academia. And that's the rad thing about culture: it's always becoming and evolving and you can still have your opinions on other ideologies that are different from yours. Regardless, Headley's book can be seen as a gateway for individuals to be interested in the more difficult, academic texts of Beowulf - if they want to. Or, they could just enjoy the book because that's always an option too. I'll have to let you know if my class "hates" the book just like "everyone else" does, haha! 😂
I agree with you that culture is always changing, as is how we translate ancient texts. A good example is Headley's focus on understanding Grendel's mother, a perspective previous generations of academics have not focused on. And I'm glad that you enjoyed Headley's translation, because I know there will be many readers who will enjoy the modern cultural references even if I did not. And when it comes to translations, of course modern anachronisms will often used, because certain terminology is less familiar to us now then it was even a century ago. Words change meanings. Gay a century ago meant happy, and now it means something very different. Who knows, in a century Bro might mean something completely different and not fit at all in translating Beowulf. Where I might disagree with you is the idea that classics like Beowulf must be completely relatable to a modern audience. It's basically saying that Beowulf, in its archaic form (like the translations of Heaney and Tolkien) is bad simply because it's not how we talk today. How could we in the modern day possibly understand the ideas and lessons of many centuries ago. Instead, we are entitled to have things communicated to us only in simplified, modern words. I think this idea is greatly dumbing down just what modern audiences are capable of understanding. Oh, you can't possibly understand Shakespeare, so let's get rid of iambic pentameter and thou and thy and replace it with modern prose and bro. For me, that's not a good argument. Classics should be understand both for the timeless lessons they examine as well as the culture and language they came from. That's why I think translations should try to capture the original as much as possible while still being understandable. And changing a classic's language to modern slang disses on the complexity of those olden times. But perhaps my opinion isn't as commonly agreed upon in academic circles as it would have been fifty years ago. What can I say, I'm probably old fashioned, lol.
