[Causality1]

Tolkien and I wouldn’t have agreed when it comes to the sort of language required for a translation of Beowulf—

Then you would be wrong. One of the most important things about pre-Hastings English literature is that it was not in any sense casual writing. It was not being written by common people. Old English on the page was very different from Old English as spoken on the streets, just as different as a Twitch stream chat log is from a post-grad dissertation. Written Old English was institutionally formal to such a degree that it preserved grammatical forms that hadn't been in common spoken parlance for hundreds of years. If you choose to ignore this you're doing a rewrite, not a translation.

[macintux]

I would suggest when disagreeing with someone about a topic this inherently devoid of absolute truth you refrain from statements like “you’re wrong”.

You make some excellent points, but by starting out with an absolute assertion like that you undermine the value of the rest of your content.

[wolverine876]

I think she might be arguing that she is going to do it her way, not Tolkien's way. Also, there's the thrill to onlookers of seeing her thumb her nose at 'authority', rather than expressing some curiosity about the other person's perspective as a human being - the same curiosity we should have about hers. In context, that statement of hers is a bit different:

A “perfect” translation would require the translator to time travel fantastically rather than historically—more Narnia than Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure. As if this weren’t enough, the language of the poem is as much a world-building tool as the plot is, engineered with the poet’s own anachronistic filter, an archaic, lyric lexicography.5

“If you wish to translate, not re-write, Beowulf,” J.R.R. Tolkien wrote in 1940, “your language must be literary and traditional: not because it is now a long while since the poem was made, or because it speaks of things that have since become ancient; but because the diction of Beowulf was poetical, archaic, artificial (if you will), in the day the poem was made.”6

Tolkien and I wouldn’t have agreed when it comes to the sort of language required for a translation of Beowulf—perceptions of “literary” and “traditional” language vary widely depending on who’s doing the perceiving, and Tolkien had a liking for the courtly that I do not share—but we agree that the original’s dense wordplay must be reckoned with.

Amid a slew of regressions in the past half decade, I must cite a win—the democratization of information. Access to formerly gate-kept texts has been radically broadened. Until recently, it was a cotton-gloved privilege to view the original manuscript of Beowulf. Now a click, and there you are, looking at handwriting a thousand years old: “Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon…” Not only is the original accessible to anyone with an internet connection, so are a huge number of translations and volumes of evolving scholarship, many long out of print. This translation exists because of that access.