[Mediterraneo10]

Seamus Heaney’s translation of Beowulf two decades got quite a bit of attention in mainstream magazines and newspapers. Plus, 2007 saw a film adaptation of Beowulf directed by Robert Zemeckis and written by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary. There is public interest in this poem as a classic of English literature even when Tolkien is not involved.

[hinkley]

And there is also The 13th warrior, a screen adaptation of Michael Crichton’s ode to Beowulf, called Eaters of the Dead.

[dmckeon]

The first part of which (up to the flaming ship funeral) borrows from Ibn Battuta.

http://muslimheritage.com/article/ahmad-ibn-fadhlan-northern...

[Izkata]

Even aside from straight adaptations, the characters show up elsewhere - such as when Xena helped Beowulf with Grendel.

[narag]

Outlander (2008)?

[scottlocklin]

Heaney's translation is bloody awful too.

Reading a chunk of Beowulf in the original was, along with learning Maxwell's equations and reading Gibbon one of the best things I ever did for myself. It's ... fairly obvious it's one person. The latter half with the dragon could have been an add-on.

[libraryatnight]

Heaney's translation is pretty fun to read, I don't know what you're talking about with this "bloody awful" stuff. It's a poets translation for sure, and he admittedly takes license, but "bloody awful" feels like a stretch.

Heaney's translation felt like he took Tolkien's "The Monsters and the Critics" to heart with his understanding, and clear love of the source.

[scottlocklin]

I don't care if he loves the source; it was an awful translation and it gives me the heebie jeebies like nails on a chalkboard. Just picking it up gives me the creeps; vandalism.

Rebsamen is closer to something like what was actually written.

[libraryatnight]

Your Rebsamen comment is true - everything else you say makes you sound like those people who go around telling others they can't possibly appreciate or enjoy sushi if they've never been to Japan.

You may want to try dislodging the stick from your wart ridden anus.

[scottlocklin]

Well, at least you've read the damn thing. There's no accounting for taste, and unless you're Haney, there is no reason to be personally insulting.

[libraryatnight]

Disliking something is fine, calling it shit is pompous and ignorant for someone boasting of being well read.

[krapp]

>Plus, 2007 saw a film adaptation of Beowulf directed by Robert Zemeckis and written by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary.

That film would likely not have happened if not for the success of the Lord of the Rings films, and most people likely never heard of Beowulf until then, unless they dimly remembered having to read it in class once.

And no translation of anything, much less any book without a big media tie in, gets anything close to "quite a bit of attention" in the mainstream press. Coverage in literature sections of the newspapers or dedicated literary sites are far from mainstream.

And this is an article in Ars Technica, which to HN may seem mainstream, but which is far from it for the masses. A quick Google of "Tolkein Beowulf single author" brings up little in the way of mainstream coverage, with the Ars article being on top.

Don't get me wrong, I love Beowulf and Seamus Heaney's translation is one of the few books I'll reread regularly, but elfakyn is correct. If Tolkein's name weren't involved, no one would be covering this at all, and really, almost no one is now.

[NeedMoreTea]

Well it does become difficult to separate considering Tolkein lectured about Beowulf, translated it in the 1920s (not published until this decade!), and his decades of work on ancient languages, philology and linguistics.

Nothing to do with LotR films, more to do with an intellectual giant well known in the field (who also wrote LotR). The books were far better anyway.

Neither is it Tolken's fault Beowulf is considered the most significant work from Old English. Often discussed in the broadsheets I once read, not ever likely to reach those who read the Sun or the Mirror. Still doesn't stop it being a highly significant work (without Tolken or Jackson).

The Beeb trot it out regularly - not buried in dusty literate sections that no one normal would encounter, which seems to be what you're driving at.

Mind it probably even reached down to tabloid readers from time to time. There was a fun Australian cartoon version, narrated by Peter Ustinov retelling from Grendel's point of view. Managed to become a bit of a cult classic in its day. There's been a couple of TV mini series. Probably a game and festival too for all I know!

[Mediterraneo10]

> That film would likely not have happened if not for the success of the Lord of the Rings films

That particular film may not have been made, but it’s not hard to imagine an adaptation being made by someone even in the absence of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Michael Crichton’s Eaters of the Dead, which riffs on the Beowulf story, got a film adaptation (as The Thirteen Warrior) in 1999. The Beowulf story isn’t The Dream of the Rood or other esoteric Old English literature; it has adventure elements that will attract ordinary audiences from time to time.

> Coverage in literature sections of the newspapers or dedicated literary sites are far from mainstream.

Literature sections of mainstream newspapers are mainstream reporting, even if many readers are going to skip over those columns. And are you seriously arguing that mags like e.g. The New Yorker or The New York Review of Books are not mainstream? Those may be bought by a certain demographic of bookish people, but those mags are sold at ordinary newsagents. They are not specialist journals.

[krapp]

>And are you seriously arguing that mags like e.g. The New Yorker or The New York Review of Books are not mainstream?

Maybe. Most people read neither nowadays. Unless my understanding of the definition of "mainstream" is flawed, that makes them essentially niche publications.

But that wasn't actually my argument. My argument is that most people don't care about literature beyond anything not tied into a popular media franchise, non-literary books or books by famous authors, and Beowulf is none of those things.

[dwringer]

Whether "most people ... care about [it as] literature", I'm not sure, but most people in many school districts and universities were at least forced to read Beowulf as part of a standard curriculum, possibly more than once over the years. Isn't the question merely whether they would've cared enough to upvote or comment on the HN posting without seeing "Tolkien" in the headline? Beowulf is part of what one might call literary canon. What constitutes a literary canon is always going to be subject to debate, as it is ultimately subjective at some level. How one is to define "popular" media franchise, "literary" books, or "famous" authors can only pose an even greater challenge in forming any consensus.

[garmaine]

Most people I know are familiar with The 13th Warrior, and know that it is a (reimagined) retelling of Beowulf by Michael Crichton. From wikipedia:

> In an afterword in the novel Crichton gives a few comments on its origin. A good friend of Crichton's was giving a lecture on the "Bores of Literature". Included in his lecture was an argument on Beowulf and why it was simply uninteresting. Crichton stated his views that the story was not a bore and was, in fact, a very interesting work. The argument escalated until Crichton stated that he would prove to him that the story could be interesting if presented in the correct way.

[krapp]

To be fair, chances are you and your friends are not representative of the mainstream. Just being on Hacker News makes that unlikely.

Michael Crichton is a famous enough author that people are more likely than not to see a movie based on his work because it's a "Michael Crichton movie" and neither know nor care about the source material. To most people, the Beowulf movie is just a fantasy movie where Angelina Jolie plays a sexy demon, not the adaptation of Beowulf they've been waiting for years to see, the way people were waiting to see (or dreading to see) the Lord of the Rings.

Beowulf just isn't that significant or relevant in popular culture - it just isn't. I don't even know why this is controversial.

[justin66]

> Beowulf just isn't that significant or relevant in popular culture - it just isn't. I don't even know why this is controversial.

Not everyone slept through their high school English class and failed to notice when characters in movies they were watching were named "Beowulf."

And we're talking about one of the few things that is examined in almost every high school English class.

[thaumasiotes]

> we're talking about one of the few things that is examined in almost every high school English class.

I don't think this comes close to being true. Maybe in Britain.

Ancient epics and ancient languages are a primary interest for me, but no school class ever covered Beowulf.

[justin66]

> no school class ever covered Beowulf

How interesting. In that case am I right in guessing that your coverage of the Medieval part of the canon was limited to Chaucer and didn't include anything else? I'm just curious how much things have changed.

[krapp]

Plenty of people studied Chaucer in English class as well, and yet no almost no one in mainstream culture cares about Canterbury Tales.

And yes, more people more or less slept through English class than not.

[inflatableDodo]

>Beowulf just isn't that significant or relevant in popular culture - it just isn't. I don't even know why this is controversial.

I dunno, all those superhero films are doing pretty well.

[darkpuma]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to criticize the general public for not caring about Beowulf in "the right way" or are you trying to criticize the media for not caring about Beowulf in "the right way"? Or do you think this story should not have been reported at all?

[krapp]

> Are you trying to criticize the general public for not caring about Beowulf in "the right way" or are you trying to criticize the media for not caring about Beowulf in "the right way"? Or do you think this story should not have been reported at all?

I'm criticizing the premise that Beowulf is as well known as Tolkien's works in popular culture, or even that well known at all outside of niche literary circles, as counter to the claim that Tolkien's attachment to the story has no relevance to the degree of its coverage, which, itself, is limited to begin with.

[darkpuma]

Okay, well the way you are phrasing it seems to suggest you're annoyed that the story was published and/or posted here.

[krapp]

No, not at all. This is exactly the kind of diverse content we need more of.

[ctdonath]

Several other movie renditions of Beowulf were made before the LotR films.

[krapp]

How much money did they make?