Tolkien is Not Yeats [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Gilthalion

07-25-2001, 06:44 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hobbitus Emeritus
Posts: 501</TD><TD><img src=http://home.att.net/~robertwgardner/lotrmap.gif WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Yeats is not Tolkien!

Found it:
http://slate.msn.com/culturebox/entries/01-07-24_112347.aspslate.msn.com/culturebox/entries/01-07-24_112347.asp</a>

The guy is entitled to his lowbrow opinion.

I personally find the poetry (songs for the most part) to be quite good.

If the author of this piece really wanted to see Tolkien have a go at epic poetry, he should read the Lay of Leithian.

Ladies and Entlemen, expect a lot more of this kind of review in the coming weeks!

PREDICTION: Based upon the previous criticism from (what I call) the Literary Left, I expect many more derogatory articles and essays and critiques of Tolkien's works to be featured in publications like Salon.

<center><font face=verdana size=1> http://www.barrowdowns.comBarrow-Downs</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000Bare Bones</a>~http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/gilthalion.htmlGrand Adventures</a>~http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.aspThe Hobbits</a>~http://www.tolkientrail.comTolkien Trail</a> </center></p>

Gwindor

07-25-2001, 07:34 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 13</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Tolkien is Not Yeats

Notice how he only quotes the mediocre little kid poems, and Tom B. singing jiberish! He is just trying to create an opinion that will start a stir. More power to him. I sent in the article to theonering.net. they will bombard him with complaint emails! he gets what he deserves. Bwa hahahahahha!!!!!!

-Gwindor

</p>

Odysseus819

07-26-2001, 06:13 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ghost-Prince of Cardolan
Posts: 601</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Tolkien is Not Yeats

Yes, quoting Pippin's bath song, as support for the argument that Tolkien's poetry is bad, is pretty lame -- like quoting one of the fool's songs from "As You Like It" as "proof" that Shakespeare was a bad poet. I certainly don't think that the songs and poems are the best part of LotR, but they're mostly well done. In terms of the critic's point about the plot being often interrupted for a song, the only instance I can think of is Aragorn's and Legolas' funeral song for Boromir, which I always thought a bit strange but still touching.

P.s. LOL at "Entlemen" !!

<font size = "-2"> Listen! the mighty Being is awake / And doth with his eternal motion make / A sound like thunder--everlastingly.</p>[i]

Odysseus819

07-26-2001, 06:22 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ghost-Prince of Cardolan
Posts: 602</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Tolkien is Not Yeats

Feste's song from "Twelfth Night":

"When that I was and a little tiny boy,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
A foolish thing was but a toy,
For the rain it raineth every day.
But when I came to man's estate,
With hey, ho, & c.
'Gainst knaves and thieves men shut their gate,
For the rain, & c.
But when I came, alas! to wive,
With hey, ho, & c.
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, & c.
But when I came unto my beds,
With hey, ho, & c.
With toss-pots still had drunken heads,
For the rain, & c.
A great while ago the world begun,
With hey, ho, & c.
But that's all one, our play is done,
And we'll strive to please you every day."

Boy Shakespeare is bad poet isn't he?

<font size = "-2"> Listen! the mighty Being is awake / And doth with his eternal motion make / A sound like thunder--everlastingly.</p>[i]

SteadfastSam

07-27-2001, 08:26 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 446</TD><TD><img src=http://66.37.237.17/images/characters/vanityfair-astin_sm.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Tolkien is Not Yeats

*gag* <img src=laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

"I will, Lord." said Tuor.</p>

The Barrow-Wight

07-27-2001, 08:55 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wraith of Angmar
Posts: 2464</TD><TD><img src=http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/theeye2.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
I had to make a short reply

I posted a short reply to this article:

Your criticism of Tolkien's poetry was the saddest thing I've read in years. Not because the poems in question were wonderful and I felt that that you had maligned them, but rather because you took the intentionally humorous verses and purposely misrepresented their context so that you could rile Tolkien fans. What a media-hungry troll you are. You even sucked me in. But at least I got to call a troll a troll and didn't have to resort to shouting things at the world so someone would pay attention to me for 15 minutes.

not much, but it made me feel better <img src=smile.gif ALT=":)">

The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)
<font size="2">I usually haunt http://www.barrowdowns.comThe Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgiMiddle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p>

Gilthalion

07-28-2001, 10:00 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hobbitus Emeritus
Posts: 511</TD><TD><img src=http://home.att.net/~robertwgardner/lotrmap.gif WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: I had to make a short reply

heh!

<center><font face=verdana size=1> http://www.barrowdowns.comBarrow-Downs</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000Bare Bones</a>~http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/gilthalion.htmlGrand Adventures</a>~http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.aspThe Hobbits</a>~http://www.tolkientrail.comTolkien Trail</a> </center></p>

SteadfastSam

07-28-2001, 11:34 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 448</TD><TD><img src=http://66.37.237.17/images/characters/vanityfair-astin_sm.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: I had to make a short reply

We Tolkien Fans get made fun of all the time and it is not fair! You were perfectly right to defy the illiterate dweebs who malign us.

"I will, Lord." said Tuor.</p>

GandaIf The White

07-28-2001, 11:18 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 313</TD><TD><img src=http://www.herr-der-ringe-film.de/HdR/crewmckel.JPG WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: I had to make a short reply

I dont care what other people think about Tolkiens work.. I know I like it. Some people at my highschool say the books are boring, etc.. and view me as a nerd because I like to read them. Just ignore these narrow-minded remarks. If that guy had half a brain he would realize Tolkien for the genuis he is, and even if he didnt like him it doesn't mean he has to criticize his work to gain attention.

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p>

Halbarad

07-30-2001, 08:33 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 23</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Beowulf

On the topic of epic poetry, Tolkien was one of few scholars who defended the epic OE poem Beowulf as having merit. This ties in with his epic style of writing in the lay of Liethan (Luthien?). Just an obscure fact (which is a specialty of mine) :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- "A little people, but of great worth are the Shire-folk. Little do they know of our long labour for the safekeeping of their borders, and yet I grudge it not."</p>

Odysseus819

07-31-2001, 09:47 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ghost-Prince of Cardolan
Posts: 620</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Beowulf

Halbarad --

I wd have thought that many scholars ascribed great worth to Beowulf. In any case there's a semi-new (couple years old maybe) translation of Beowulf by Seamus Heaney that's really good.

<font size = "-2"> Listen! the mighty Being is awake / And doth with his eternal motion make / A sound like thunder--everlastingly.</p>[i]

Gilthalion

07-31-2001, 01:26 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hobbitus Emeritus
Posts: 528</TD><TD><img src=http://home.att.net/~robertwgardner/lotrmap.gif WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Beowulf

I just read another translation of it, finishing the other night. Really grand stuff, especially when one remembers when and by who it was conceived and then written.

<center><font face=verdana size=1> http://www.barrowdowns.comBarrow-Downs</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000Bare Bones</a>~http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/gilthalion.htmlGrand Adventures</a>~http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.aspThe Hobbits</a>~http://www.tolkientrail.comTolkien Trail</a> </center></p>

Elven-Maiden

02-03-2002, 06:45 PM

OK, I'm insulted!!! Pipin's bath song is the best part of the whole book! How dare they try and diss it! smilies/mad.gif

The Mirrorball Man

02-04-2002, 06:15 AM

Of course Tolkien was no match for Yeats, but I think his poetry was more than adequate, and sometimes very beautiful. He did write some awkward or even self-indulgent pieces, but focusing on these while forgetting the rest is pretty idiotic if you ask me.

Birdland

02-04-2002, 07:18 AM

Hmmm, sounds like a bad case of "Publish or Perish" to me.

No, Tolkien ain't Yeats. Neither was Kipling, T.H. White, A.A. Milne, Lewis Carroll...just what was his point?

"Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a fairy, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping
Than you can understand."

The Stolen Child
W.B. Yeats

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-04-2002, 08:44 AM

Whether or not poetry is "good" is a difficult decision to make, and not one that I should like to have thrust upon me, since art is such a thoroughly subjective subject. If you happened to be asked to compare, for example, John Keats and Sylvia Plath it might prove difficult enough to decide which of their very different styles made for better poetry and there'd be a lot of disagreement whichever you backed. To choose between accomplished and famous poets is to face the choice of Paris.

If, however, on the one hand we have a man famous for being a brilliant poet, such as W.B. Yeats, and on the other we have a man associated in the popular mind (if the term isn't overly oxymoronic) with real-ale bibbing Dungeons and Dragons players (I can be counted in both groups, feeling neither pride nor shame in the fact although both are considered laughable in a "real" world dominated by boy-bands, McDonald's and soap operas) and in the academic world for his scholarship, then one may claim that the poetry of the one is better than that of the other with relative impunity, provided that one has sufficient store of comic verse by one's literary victim from which to draw examples of his "serious" work (I notice that no poetry by Yeats was offered for comparison: I'm given to wonder whether the author had actually read any).

The sort of person who would put forward such an argument, "proving" his great erudition and literary discernment in the most crassly facile manner possible, is also the sort of person I should expect to want to denigrate a highly-cultivated, polyglot Oxford professor, who could support his own rather eccentric views with reference to a gigantic body of knowledge in at least eight languages, one of whose works is also an acknowledged twentieth-century classic. Tolkien's shoes are too big for such a one not to try and shrink them, and how better to do so than to call a famous philologist a bad poet? I might as well call Pepys a bad novelist, or Shakespeare a bad historian.
I doubt whether anyone would have dared to publish such egregious drivel if Tolkien were alive, although the man himself (if he bothered to reply at all) would probably have said in his usual self-deprecating and ironic style that he never claimed to be a great poet, only a humble student of the art fortunate enough to have achieved the publication of some of his work. Perhaps he would even assume satirically that the critic possessed more experience of polishing verse for publication than his poor self.
This is not to say that the argument presented in the article is invalid, only that the mode of presentation is clumsy and academically unsound: the sort of thing that a professor will tear to shreds in a couple of sentences before saying "I agree with your conclusion", as those graduates among us will no doubt remember. As for the other intentions of the piece, I think the Barrow Wight's letter covers it. The poor recipient of that letter, with his petty-minded desire to attack anything greater than himself (he's more material for this than most people) is clearly well suited to writing short reviews of reprinted books, which are ignored unless he courts attention by hurling insults at household names. Books worth reading will have been reviewed properly by several people with opinions that matter by the time the second edition emerges, let alone by the time they've been in print for nearly fifty years.

I say pity the popinjay and put him out of memory: it's been long enough, considering the dates of these posts.

[ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

Tevildo

03-25-2002, 07:03 PM

For my money, Tolkien is a BETTER poet than Yeats! In particular, I point to "Errantry" from The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and the Finrod-vs.-Sauron passage of the Lay of Leithian. I have a bias toward narrative poetry, true, but nobody other than Poe can do with words what Tolkien can...
-Tevildo, Prince of Cats.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Tildrum ]

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-19-2003, 04:44 AM

As a footnote to this discussion, in my description of my visit to Tolkien's grave (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000983) I quote one of his poems that it would be much fairer to compare with Yeats' work than Tom Bombadil's comic madrigals. I still wouldn't want to choose between these two great men of letters, though: what an act of presumption that would be.

Bêthberry

02-19-2003, 09:45 AM

Gee, for a moment I thought this thread suffered from a typo, and that "Tolkien is not yeast" belonged down in the BarrowDowns forum on the recipe threads.

Frodo Baggins

02-19-2003, 10:50 AM

You are SUCH a riot Bethberry!

Let's ask out popinjay critic to translate Beowulf from Anglo-Saxon into modern English shall we? I betcha he can't do it! Tolkien did. Heh, If he were still alive to day I'd write him a sweet little letter saying that it's because of him that I am now learning Anglo-Saxon very well (Even though I get wierd looks when I read Anglo-Saxon dictionaries and Primers).

As for Epic Poetry:

THe lay of Lethien (oh yeah)

Bilbo's song of Earendil (That's a phenomenon in itself)

Legolas' Lay of Niphredil.

ohh! Don't forget Galadreil's Quenya song as the fellowship leaves Lorien, ask anoyone else to write something like that.

The Lament of Gil-Galad, I'll ad mit that one makes me cry every time.

Rotten orc minded fools!

littlemanpoet

02-19-2003, 08:55 PM

Cup o' mead for now, set the pipe down....

Yes, this will get around to the topic in a bit, bear with me my friends....

I've been reading a "Lives of the Great Composers" book written in 1970. I have found point after point that makes me think of all the jibes against Tolkien. You see, it runs like this. One of the underlying themes of this Composers book is that there were good, minor composers who were quite good at composing music that is quite enjoyable, but not first rate. It's the geniuses that compose first rate music, and the DIFFERENCE is that they have a hand in the development of music. That's another way of saying progress. What I find so funny is that the composers who were NOT geniuses are still being played today, and they made the music that everybody likes listening to. Not to say that a few of the geniuses' music isn't listened to, but Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Vivaldi, Mendellsohn, Elgar, Ralph V. Williams, are still being enjoyed while you have to go to some conservatory to take in the music of Webern, Berg, Schoenberg, etc.

Here's the point: you have the progressives, and you have the traditionalists. Progressives tend to be liked be fellow progressives while traditionalists have this nasty habit of being liked by a huge number of intelligent people because their art has meaning for them. Thus you have Tolkien's poetry trashed by those who care about (sniff) "the progress of poetry" (sniff sniff). Fact is, Tolkien's poetry is VERY good. He was a master with words. He had fun with it in such great, fun stuff as 'nuncle Tim' and 'the man in the moon' (one of my favorites), and he was a powerful enough poet to produce such moving works as "The Seabell" and "The Road Goes Ever On" (another one of my favorites. Tolkien was a genius. He'll never be accepted by the progressives.

Lush

02-19-2003, 09:29 PM

Wait, so Tchaikovsky wasn't a genius?

Did I just make myself look really uneducated here?

Well, anyway, point taken, littleman. At the same time, I have to admit, while I enjoy JRR's poetry, he is definitely not Yeats. Or Pasternak. Or Keats. Or Eliot. And I don't think he ever strove to be compared to the likes of them either.

And anyway, the hack from Slate was trying to be clever a lá Wolcott, and, in my opinion, failed miserably in that regard.

Frankly, I think the most appropriate take on this whole thing was by one of our usual suspects, Squatter, who said:

Tolkien's shoes are too big for such a one not to try and shrink them, and how better to do so than to call a famous philologist a bad poet? I might as well call Pepys a bad novelist, or Shakespeare a bad historian.

Diamond18

02-19-2003, 11:51 PM

Funny. Tolkien's poetry makes up a great deal of my favorite poems. Reading his work gave me the image of a man who had such a complete handle on language that he could do whatever he wanted with it. Whether it be a rolicking good ditty that you can get up on the table and sing, or a hauntingly beautiful song such as Galadriel's Lament. "I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..." I do not care one iota about anything but the fact that that line (and the whole rest of the poem) gives me chills and strikes me with its bittersweet beauty.

To me art should cause pleasure on some level; beauty, joy, or sadness. If it does, it's a good poem. If it doesn't, it isn't. I recall picking up a volume of Percy Bysshe Shelley's poem and disliking it immensly. So I would not care if ten professors told me I have a small mind because I can't fathom the depths of a good poet. I like Tolkien's poetry because it is beautiful and makes sense. It's coherent. Does that mean it's simplistic and childish? What, is poetry only good if you can't understand it?

But it occurs to me now that me lending my support for Tolkien's verse in this way is rather more of an undermining process, due to my lack of poetic credentials. I can't say I've even read Yeats. So I'll just leave it at this:

Some people just can't stand to see other people have fun.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-20-2003, 02:06 PM

I can't say I've even read Yeats.

We can't have that. Here's my favourite of his:

An Irish Airman Foresees His Death

I know that I shall meet my fate
Somewhere among the clouds above;
Those that I fight I do not hate,
Those that I guard I do not love;
My country is Kiltartan Cross,
My countrymen Kiltartan's poor,
No likely end could bring them loss
Or leave them happier than before.
Nor law, nor duty bade me fight,
Nor public men, nor cheering crowds,
A lonely impulse of delight
Drove to this tumult in the clouds;
I balanced all, brought all to mind,
The years to come seemed waste of breath,
A waste of breath the years behind
In balance with this life, this death. William Butler Yeats

Now compare if you can, folks.

Diamond18

02-20-2003, 02:22 PM

Well, well, what do you know. I heard that poem recited in a movie just a few days ago, but they did not attribute it to Yeats, the devils. To put it very simplistically, I like it; it falls under my definition of a good poem.

Tolkien isn't Yeats, and Yeats isn't Tolkien. Tolkien is Tolkien and Yeats is Yeats. I believe that is a good comparison.

Brought to you by Captain Obvious.

Purple Monkey

02-20-2003, 02:47 PM

Had I the heaven's embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with gold and silver light,
The blue and dim and the dark cloths,
Of night and light and the half-light,
Had I the heaven's embroidered cloths,
I'd lay them at your feet,
But I, being poor, have only my dreams,
I have laid my dreams at your feet.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

Irish poets, in my opinion, are the best in the world. Who can forget dear Padraig Pearce? (The beauty of the world hath made me sad...)

That was really nasty, that article. Perhaps that man should read the book.

Purple "Arise, and go to Inisfree" Monkey

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-20-2003, 04:17 PM

I heard that poem recited in a movie just a few days ago, but they did not attribute it to Yeats, the devils.

Memphis Belle, by any chance? Now that is a good film, although I hear that in its original form it was to have been a re-telling of a true story about an RAF Lancaster crew. Apparently the Royal Air Force doesn't sell to American audiences. smilies/mad.gif

Welcome to the Downs, Purple Monkey. As you can tell by my posts above, I have little time for the author of this cheap dig at Tolkien. His inclusion of these two great literary figures with his own insubstantial rubbish drags them both in the mire of his incompetence; but that beautiful quotation is going to make it well worth keeping this thread going. Thanks.

Dain

02-20-2003, 06:18 PM

Lots of the "poems" in Tolkien, especially the sillier, funnier ones, are actually songs sung to be funny. Those are the ones this idiot quotes, as if they were supposed to be serious poetry! It's like criticising nursury rhymes or the collected works of Edward Bear for not being Wordsworth. Idiots...the world is full of them...

And I think that Shakespeare bit is lovely.

[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

The Saucepan Man

02-20-2003, 06:35 PM

Personally, I think that Yeats is a wonderful poet. He is one of the few poets that I studied at school that I enjoyed. I recall that Sailing to Byzantium left a particular impression on me. Edward Thomas, whose poetry celebrates the English countryside, was another, and it seems to me that there is some analogy here with Tolkien and his love of rural England.

But unfortunately, Tolkien's poetry always kind of got in the way of the story for me. I have always rushed through it so as to to get to the next part of the book. So, I do not have any real impression of it. (This is something that I probably ought to remedy, and it is threads like this that will help provoke me into doing so.)

But that's bye the bye, except to point out that I am talking (and can only talk) of my personal opinion. As Diamond said:

To me art should cause pleasure on some level; beauty, joy, or sadness. If it does, it's a good poem. If it doesn't, it isn't ... So I would not care if ten professors told me I have a small mind because I can't fathom the depths of a good poet.

To the vast majority of people, a good poem (just like a good book or a good painting) is one that they personally react to. One that they find some beauty or pleasure or other important meaning in.

The objective merit of a piece of poetry is for poetry professors. It is the subjective merit that is important. After all, poetry is not generally written for poetry professors. It is written for people.

So, if people like Tolkien's poetry, he is (to them) a good poet, whatever the academics may say.

Diamond18

02-20-2003, 10:00 PM

Memphis Belle, by any chance?

Quite so, that is the movie. But they made it seem like one of the characters, Danny Daly, wrote it himself. Or perhaps I just misunderstood the scene.

I believe it was based on this 1944 documentary by William Wyler (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0036152).

Bah, there I go, veering off topic. That's why I just said "a movie" initially. smilies/wink.gif

I think I shall check out a volume of Yeats' poetry when I shuffle off to work tomorrow.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-21-2003, 12:09 PM

Squatter wanders blithely off-topic because now aeroplanes have been mentioned. smilies/evil.gif

Diamond, in a happier and more civilised age before television, men as young as eighteen were copying poems into notebooks and diaries for future reference. I read that scene as being the young aircrewman finding solace in the fellow-feeling of a poet from an earlier and infinitely more tragic conflict.

Of course I may be wrong. The film was made in Hollywood after all, but I seem to remember that it was fairly accurate. Mainly I watched it for those beautiful B-17Gs: they had to fly them in from all over the world to get enough for a squadron.

Faenaduial

02-21-2003, 12:44 PM

Yes Yeats is a great poet but this guy is missing the point. LoTR is not a book of poetry. The poetry and song contained in the books is meant to be common poetry and song which the characters might use or songs in the vain of minstrels recording history.

They don't get in the way of the story, they help advance the story or give you some background on a given topic.

Anyway since the review was published in 2001 and I haven't seen book sales of LoTR declining, I don't think anyone listened to this horrible rant.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-21-2003, 01:59 PM

Verb sap It is always a good idea to read these threads to the end before posting. Then you know when we've gone off on a tangent and forgotten all about the original subject.

Bill Ferny

02-21-2003, 03:52 PM

Squatter... all threads start off as tangents smilies/wink.gif

But unfortunately, Tolkien's poetry always kind of got in the way of the story for me.

Like a broken record, I find myself agreeing with PanMan, like I have on so many other threads. Its uncanny… I’m beginning to think the chap is a long lost relative or something. Actually I could quote the whole of PanMan’s post, so complete is my agreement. In my constant re-readings of LotR, I find myself even skipping over much of the poetry, mainly because I’ve read it before, much of it doesn’t appeal to me, and it does, at least for me, “put the plot on hold.” That, however, is my subjective assessment of Tolkien’s poetry. I’m in agreement with Squatter and others, who point out that subjective assessment of poetry makes comparison almost impossible. For example, my favorite poet is Gerald Manly Hopkins, but at the same time, I also enjoy Jewel’s poetry with almost as much enthusiasm. Much is in the eye of the beholder (no, Squatter, I’m not referring to a floating one-eyed beast smilies/wink.gif ).

But, does Tolkien objectively compare with Yeats? Of course not! In Tolkien’s defense, the vast majority of his poetry is in character, especially the drinking songs, the bath song, the ent’s marching song, and so forth. Rarely are such things originally written by “the masters”, but they spontaneously emerge from the experiences of common people, for common purposes, or for common fun. Attempting to compare this with Yeats is simply missing the point. Its like criticizing Blues Clues as trivial drivel in comparison to Law and Order. I suspect Tolkien wouldn’t consider himself one of “the masters” anyway, nor do I think he would claim such personal prestige for himself or his work, be it poetry or prose. I would go even further, and say Tolkien would be too humble to even disagree with the author of the above article.

However, this does bring up one of my pet peeves with Tolkien fans. The first instinct is too attack the author of the above article, even though some of his points are valid. From a purely objective standpoint, leaving out our subjective feelings for these poems, and placing them in isolation from the prose, Tolkien’s poetry in general, especially his “serious” poetry, such as the Lay of Lúthien, doesn’t hold a candle to poetry by writers such as Tennyson or Hopkins or even (dare I say it) Frost. Tennyson far surpasses Tolkien in capturing the human condition and emotive force; Hopkins far surpasses Tolkien in his artistic rendering of the English language; and Frost far surpasses Tolkien in his command of meaningful meter and rhyme.

However, this really means nothing. First of all, Tolkien’s poetry was never intended to be read in isolation from his prose, and even the Lay of Lúthien is part of a greater epic history. That really is the error of the above author; attempting to read Tolkien’s poetry out of context is grossly unfair. However, aside from this, how can one seriously contend, Tolkien fan or not, that Tolkien’s poetry is as good as Yeats, Tennyson or Hopkins? Intelligent discussion about Tolkien’s work demands that we see his work and accept it for what it is. Just because I happen to think that Chesterton and Newman wrote better prose than Tolkien, doesn’t mean that I think Tolkien was a hack! Such a judgement doesn’t mean that I would prefer to read Chesterton or Newman instead of Tolkien; in fact, the exact opposite is the case. If Tolkien, himself, didn’t attempt to usurp such prestige, why should we Tolkien fans attempt to force such lauds on his work? This, I think, may have been the point that the above author was attempting to make, albeit in a somewhat crass manner.

Is Tolkien's corpus the greatest work of fiction of the century? Looking at what he accomplished, taking all the material in context, and just considering the immensity of the work and its appeal… Yip. And this is guaranteed to gull literary critics for generations to come. Does this mean that Tolkien is the best poet and author to ever live? Oh, heck no!… and that for some reason seems to gull many Tolkien fans.

Edit: changed "Is Tolkien the greatest author of the century?" to "Is Tolkien's corpus the greatest work of fiction of the century?"

[ February 21, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

Purple Monkey

02-21-2003, 05:06 PM

Welcome to the Downs, Purple Monkey.

Why, thank you dearie. smilies/biggrin.gif You know, I've been at the forum for a month or so and no welcome came my way! Many "That's stupid" and "Shut up"s though. smilies/wink.gif

I think that the critic should have probably taken into account that, in the timeframe that LotR was set in, Pip's song would have been considered very fashionable indeed! In fact, probably as fashionable as us belting out Christina Aguilera in the shower. I'm sure no-one here does that though, what with all the dignity.

Purple "Gonna get dirrty - someday" Monkey

Nuranar

02-21-2003, 05:54 PM

Pip's song would have been considered very fashionable indeed! In fact, probably as fashionable as us belting out Christina Aguilera in the shower. I'm sure no-one here does that though, what with all the dignity.

Are you kidding? The Bath Song is my AIM away message when I'm in the shower. I'd be singing it if there were a tune! smilies/biggrin.gif

Dininziliel

02-21-2003, 10:52 PM

Hello. I thought I would take a break from corruption (another thread smilies/smile.gif ) and see what else was in the cupboard to nibble on. That was somewhat over an hour ago and, after following links and assorted asides, I am still chewing on what I found.

I am a late bloomer regarding Tolkien scholarship (aka, "Tolkien geek" here in the ever verbally economic U.S.) even though I've been a reader and re-reader since I was in kick pleats. This is a way of saying that I'm not as learn-ed as many of you in this thread, but I sure do like to learn.

When I first read The Hobbit and LotR, I was alternately amused and annoyed with the poetry for the same reasons previously posted. The next few times I read Hobbit & LotR, adding The Silmarillion, I just skipped or skimmed the poetry.

Here's a notion that approached as I travelled through everyone's posts ...

I think that appreciation of Tolkien's poetry is something akin to appreciating fine wine. It gets better with age. At first, you're guzzling and gulping because it's there. Then someone says you're supposed to stop and smell the bouquet and swirl it about a bit in a lovely glass. You do some research and learn a few phrases. The next stage comes along; time and experience have accomplished some of their work, if you've allowed it. Many veils have been lifted, several scales have fallen from your eyes and you find that, without trying, you have truly learned to savor and swirl that which you used to guzzle and gulp.

In other words, I now am floored by what and how much I overlooked making dismissive, fatuous assumptions about Tolkien's poetry.

As I started last year's re-reading, I was stunned by the very first poem in LotR--the one before the table of contents. No longer was it a rather quaint, obligatory and prefatory mood-setter. It gave me actual goosebumps because by then I understood more about evil and its operational aspects. And, I instantly recognized that Tolkien's profound grasp of evil was matched by the ability to install very basic truths deeply into our mental hard drives. Now I have an inkling of why I have gravitated most of my life to his work (didn't mean to make a pun, and don't want to go through the self-conscious flutters over finding an alternative word so I'm going to leave it stet).

I had much the same forehead-slapping gestalt experience about his prose, too.

I'm just an envious wannabe at literary criticism (oh, how I'd love to wax on and not off at pubs and parties holding forth with insights and pithy proferrings, --you can see why I don't... smilies/rolleyes.gif ) but I'd like to offer an excerpt from Ursula Le Guin on the subject. If anyone can remain among the ranks of the fashionably existential or the Tolkien's-too-trite-for-me camp after reading her piece, well ... some people are just too cool for us, aren't they? smilies/wink.gif

This is just a little tad out of her piece in Meditations on Middle Earth called "Rhythmic Patterns." (I'm sure some of you have read the book.) I selected a section that's relevant to the more recent topics of discussion; however, it is an education unto prose and poetry in itself.
All punctuation is hers or the eds.

This 'trochaic' alternation of stress and relief is of course a basic device of narrative, from folk tales to War and Peace; but Tolkien's reliance on it is striking. It is one of the things that makes his narrative technique unusual for the mid-twentieth century. Unrelieved psychological or emotional stress or tension, and a narrative pace racing without a break from start to climax, characterize much of the fiction of the time. To readers with such expectations, Tolkien's plodding stress/relief pattern seemed, and seems, simplistic, primitive. To others, it may seem a remarkably simple, subtle technique of keeping the reader going on a long and ceaselessly rewarding journey.

I recently read that LotR and The Silmarillion are devilishly difficult to translate into other languages due to their being fashioned on the linguistical characteristics of Old Norse epic poetry (or something similar--I'm on a learning curve here smilies/biggrin.gif ).

I'm going to start to wind this up. Here's some flotsam and jetsam ...

Question: What is the background on Frodo's performance of the Man in the Moon ditty at The Prancing Pony? Did Tolkien fiddle a bit with Mother Goose or is this an Old Norse drinking song? smilies/eek.gif

I feel I have been transported there and back again reading Squatter's own prose. Thank you, sir. Indeed, I have mightily enjoyed reading many posts in this thread, so I thank you all. I love having reasons to love the minds of Men.

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ]

littlemanpoet

02-22-2003, 05:39 AM

I would quote, but my computer is being recalcitrantly SLOW in producing the archive of this thread. Anyway, I think it's Bill Ferny who came up with the following distinction: "edit: changed 'Tolkien's book as the greatest of the century' to 'Tolkien's corpus as the greatest of the century'."

Bill, this is a valuable distinction. It clarifies the debate in a way I have not seen until now. Is it original with you?

Bill Ferny

02-22-2003, 11:38 AM

Poet,

When I work at the computer I keep BD open in the background. When I popped up BD the first thing I saw was that paragraph; it didn’t make much sense to me, so I changed it. I noted the change because it transformed the meaning of the paragraph significantly. I doubt if the distinction is original… after all I’m a researcher by trade, and my kind isn’t known for originality smilies/biggrin.gif .

The significance of the distinction is open to much debate. In comparison to any other work of literature, I can’t think of anything else that approaches the scale of Tolkien’s corpus in regards to depth (linguistic, historical, philosophical, and perhaps theological), or in regards to narrative story telling. In many ways its more comparable to Saint Thomas’ Summa or Copleston’s History of Western Philosophy than to works of fiction. What does that say about the author, though? Does the fecundity of the corpus make Tolkien a better artist than other writers, even though other writers may be able to (objectively speaking) pen better poetry or prose, or come up with comparable narrative (i.e. Lewis)?

What I am sure of, though, is that saying “Newman wrote better prose than Tolkien” is merely a distinction that is not by any stretch of the imagination a slight against Tolkien. Likewise, the opinion that Yeats, Robert Browning, Hopkins and Tennyson wrote better poetry than Tolkien isn’t making the claim that Tolkien wrote horrible poetry. Just because I think Squatter, Poet, Lush, Doug, Sharon, and, of course PanMan smilies/wink.gif write the best posts on this forum isn’t saying that they are the only people on the forum who have valid opinions or insights or that I don’t read anyone else’s posts and glean insight or enjoyment from them.

We Tolkien fans need to accept the fact that the professor isn’t going to hit the top of the charts, so to speak, in every category. In fact, we have to admit that he reaches the top of the chart in one category only, because he invented the category in the first place, and is the only writer who can claim to belong to that category. That, in and of itself, is an extremely lofty achievement.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-22-2003, 06:19 PM

Just for the record, I consider myself to possess a certain amount of literary discernment, being reasonably well-read, and I consider Tolkien to have been a very accomplished poet, if a little old-fashioned for modernist or progressive ears.

I would rate Tolkien at least as highly as the likes of Seamus Heaney and Sylvia Plath; and I think that The Last Ark, a link to which is provided above, puts him on a par with Keats on any scale. I don't love Tolkien's poetry because I admire him. I admire him because I love his poetry. There is a difference. I slammed the article for being facile and ignorant, not for attacking Tolkien.

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

Kuruharan

02-22-2003, 07:13 PM

if a little old-fashioned for modernist or progressive ears.

He would probably think this a very high compliment.

Lady Alasse

02-22-2003, 08:01 PM

The author of that article didn't even put in the whole song. smilies/mad.gif How can you have people judge the poem when it isn't all there. and it is supposed to be humerous. smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif
Grrr. I am not happy with him!

Iarwain

02-22-2003, 08:19 PM

Very funny article, the author wanted to criticize Tolkien and he found a logical means of doing so. I agree that my songs aren't the most intelligible things, but I'm a jolly old fellow all the same.

Laughing drunkenly at my Yellow Boots,
Iarwain Ben-Adar (a.k.a. Tom Bombadil)

Bill Ferny

02-22-2003, 08:23 PM

Squatter,

I can’t comment on Sylvia Plath due to ignorance… I’m not much of a poetry aficionado anyway. However, after reading an excerpt from Tolkien’s translation of Beowulf, I definitely prefer Heaney’s translation… on the other hand I prefer Raffel’s translation over Heaney’s… go figure.

I don't love Tolkien's poetry because I admire him. I admire him because I love his poetry.

I can respect that, though subjectively I would disagree. For me, I put up with Tolkien’s poetry because I admire the whole of the narrative. Also, probably due to my ingrained cynicism, I never admire an artist because of his art; I’ve found that the artist’s art usually far surpasses the qualities of the artist, himself.

I slammed the article for being facile and ignorant, not for attacking Tolkien.

I for one didn’t get the impression that you slammed the article in your post. Rather, I got the impression that you disagreed with the article, and the manner in which it was presented. I’m in agreement with you.

This, however, was that to which I was referring:

I'M OUTRAGED!
How dare they insult Tom Bombadil!
And Tolkien as well, I enjoy poetry, and especially the poems in LOTR!

I don’t mean to single out Theodred21. However, I really didn’t perceive in the article an outright insult leveled against Tolkien, himself. I perceived, perhaps, a veiled insult toward Tolkien fans, though. But I’m not going to sit here and say certain people don’t deserve insult sometimes. There are those who at times seem to scream for insults, myself included. When admiration for Tolkien or his art becomes fanboyism (“Tolkien rules! Everybody else sux!”), then by all means, dish out the well deserved insults.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-22-2003, 09:00 PM

However, after reading an excerpt from Tolkien’s translation of Beowulf, I definitely prefer Heaney’s translation
You have the advantage of me there Bill. I've only read Heaney's translation, and never the original. I wasn't referring to translations, though: Tolkien was the sort of man who would have tried so hard to preserve the meaning of the piece that he would have been unable to make it work as poetry, which to my mind is only ever fully appreciated in its original language anyway. I studied Plath and Heaney for 'A' level English Literature, along with Keats and Blake. They are all great poets, and so is Tolkien. I do not compare them: I read poetry in my spare time for pleasure, and I do not set those poets up against each other either, because that is not what poetry is about: it isn't about who's best, or who has the most critical acclaim; it's about each individual exploring their language and emotions to create beautiful pieces of writing. Tolkien was as good at this as any of the other poets I have mentioned.

You need not trouble yourself unduly on my account, Bill: I wasn't aiming my comments at you, but at those who insist that Tolkien wasn't "objectively" a good poet. There is no such thing as an objective artistic opinion, because art is the creation of beauty and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To say otherwise is to indulge a fallacy.

I am very concerned that some people are posting opinions in this thread about Tolkien's poetry and its quality relative to that of other poets, and freely admitting in the same post that they do not read poetry. Surely this completely invalidates any opinion they might have, due to the absence of any background knowledge of the subject.

If you don't read poetry, stay out of a discussion about poetry because you don't know enough about it to form an informed opinion. It's quite simple.

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

burrahobbit

02-22-2003, 09:26 PM

Simplicity is a tricky thing, pal.

Bill Ferny

02-22-2003, 10:58 PM

All simplicity aside, I would rather be called long winded than simple minded. smilies/wink.gif

There is no such thing as an objective artistic opinion, because art is the creation of beauty and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To say otherwise is to indulge a fallacy.

That’s a rather touchy issue for me, from a philosophical stand point. I remember way back in my infancy debating whether beauty was a transcendental in my sophomore year metaphysics class. The debate was so intense that it usurped two of poor Fr. Gonzales’ lectures. When we finally moved on to subsistence, no one, I think, was satisfied with the mixed opinions that was the fruit of the debate, at least among us who took the debate seriously… I distinctly remember my best friend snoozing in the back row.

At the time I sided with the group that claimed beauty was a transcendental, and beauty was not recognized and lack of beauty was mistaken for beauty, because of ignorance, fallen nature, and poor breeding (tongue-in-cheek). In other words, beauty is objective. Over the years, during post-graduate work (that included medieval aesthetics) and beyond into the real world of job and family life, my stand on the issue has fluctuated erratically, but I have always been inclined in the end to fall back on the objectivity of beauty. Perhaps this is because of the influences stemming from studying Romanesque and Gothic art and architecture with its emphasis on mathematical proportion, harmony and symmetry, and an obsessive interest in Saint Augustine’s De Musica.

Whether you agree that beauty is objective or not, doesn’t mean that the notion that beauty is objective is a fallacy, especially since there have been some very intelligent and prominent thinkers out there who would beg to differ with such a claim, or at least challenge it (i.e. Plato, Augustine, Fichte, Schelling, Lonergan, etc.).

This attitude is plainly evident in my taste regarding poetry. I’m much more inclined toward the sonnet than toward Walt Whitman or ee cumings, for example. However, in moments of wanton rebellion, I can be found browsing a book of poetry by Jewel. I guess, then what I’m saying, is that even though I accept that beauty is essentially an objective reality, the Dasein, the individual human intellect, is able, according to its operation, to distinguish lower and higher desires in diverse ways, sometimes in contradiction with other individual human intellects. This mystery of the Dasein, however, does not change the nature of beauty, itself, that is it’s transcendental nature.

What does this have to do with literary criticism? Well, this, actually… all critics, no matter the media, must admit certain criteria by which they criticize. That criteria has to be objective in order to be a relevant tool for criticism. I’m not a literary critic, so I’m not going to attempt to catalog this objective criteria. But I have had enough literature classes to know there definitely is such a criteria (much to my school boy chagrin). These are the standards by which poetry is judged. Granted these standards have a tendency to change often, usually due to revolutions initiated by the poets, themselves. However, they still remain standards that distinguish the Man from Nantucket poems from Shakespearean sonnets (that often contain rather similar subject matter). I think if we seriously approach Tolkien’s poetry employing such criteria, then I doubt his poetry will be judged as good as Yeats or Hopkins. That’s not to say his poetry by the same criteria is horrible, just not as good. There’s no insult in that. At any rate, what an honor to be compared to Yeats in the first place!

I am very concerned that some people are posting opinions in this thread about Tolkien's poetry and its quality relative to that of other poets, and freely admitting in the same post that they do not read poetry. Surely this completely invalidates any opinion they might have, due to the absence of any background knowledge of the subject.

I may be guilty of this. Fact of the matter is, is that while I have my favorites that I re-read often, I really don’t read that much poetry. I am trying, however, to speak from my experience, namely from my reading of those favorites (Hopkins, Tennyson, Browning, Byron, and yes, Jewel), and my vague remembrance of certain poets (Yeats and Frost) that for some reason I was forced to practically memorize in both high school and under-graduate days. If the truth be known, I would rather read a collection of essays regarding the sociological impact inspired by the invention of the wheeled plow than an anthology of poetry. Can you find it your heart to forgive me, Squatter?

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-23-2003, 04:46 AM

Of course I can, Bill, although I do not see what there is to forgive about your thoughtful and articulate comments. I always enjoy reading your posts, and the above is no exception.

Whilst I may possibly have read more poetry than you have, your knowledge of philosophy clearly outstrips mine by a long chalk. I concede the point that there are certain objective criteria to which professional critics must adhere, but we are not professional critics here, and the impact that a poem has on those who read solely for pleasure taken in poetic expression is not governed by our appreciation of these qualities (at least not at the first reading). Tolkien's poetry, particularly The Last Ark, to which I refer constantly due to the profound effect it has on me, both in Quenya and English, is often so achingly beautiful that it brings me to the verge of tears, just as does Yeats' An Irish Airman Forsees his Death, quoted above.

I am currently reading for the first time The Lays of Beleriand (HoME III), in which are given the major versions of Tolkien's two most ambitious poetic projects, The Lay of the Children of Húrin in the old English alliterative meter, and the Lay of Leithian in octosyllabic couplets! I have written a little poetry myself, although not of a very high quality, and I am amazed at the enormity of the task that Tolkien set himself in choosing these incredibly demanding meters for his epics. Whilst he often fails in the earlier versions I see no reason to disagree with Christopher Tolkien's opinion that these have

...a sad prominence in the list of [my father's] works that might have been.

I would be very interested in taking a discussion of poetry and philosophical theories of beauty and expression to PM or email if you are not averse to such an enterprise. I certainly concur in my appreciation of sonnets (Shakespeare's Sonnet XVIII is still one of my favourite pieces of poetry), yet I feel that the likes of Wilfred Owen (whose words form the link in my signature), Lewis Carroll and J.R.R. Tolkien also deserve their place. Perhaps it is my own inability to reproduce the quality of their work that leads me to be so cautious about comparing them. I feel that I am unqualified to comment on their work, which is why I often rant when others with less knowledge than I blithely jump in with completely uninformed opinions on the subject, apparently based on their non-reading of the works in question. "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", as the saying goes. I do not believe that you are this sort of person, and I would esteem it a privilege to correspond with you on this issue.

For the moment, however, I must regretfully let this subject drop, as I have commitments on Estelyn's Revenge of the Entish Bow roleplay. Please can you all try to think very carefully about how much you really know about poetry before announcing so confidently your opinions upon it. Some of us find too much comparison and analysis to be a besmirchment of beautiful works, and I am reminded often of Gandalf's words to Saruman: "...he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

I advise you all to read more poetry. It is one of the purest and most sublime forms of artistic expression, and does wonders for one's own writing style. I hope that you follow this advice, and enjoy the process as thoroughly as I do.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:55 AM December 10, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

littlemanpoet

02-23-2003, 06:27 AM

This is an enlightening thread. I greatly appreciate the thoughtful posts, especially by Bill Ferny and Squatter. Bill Ferny, why did you ever choose such a moniker beneath you? The quality of your posts makes me think of you more as a Faramir than a Ferny.

In comparison to any other work of literature, I can’t think of anything else that approaches the scale of Tolkien’s corpus in regards to depth (linguistic, historical, philosophical, and perhaps theological), or in regards to narrative story telling. In many ways its more comparable to Saint Thomas’ Summa or Copleston’s History of Western Philosophy than to works of fiction. What does that say about the author, though? Does the fecundity of the corpus make Tolkien a better artist than other writers, even though other writers may be able to (objectively speaking) pen better poetry or prose, or come up with comparable narrative (i.e. Lewis)?

Tolkien was a philologist. He was a lingual genius. He could speak fluent Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Icelandic, and many other languages, both dead and living. Being a philologist, he also had a profound sense of the development of language, myth, and history, and the relations between them. Being a lingual genius, it was inevitable that he would compose languages of his own making, just as musical geniuses must compose music. His profound sense of development led him to ask the philological question, "how did these words come to be the way they are?" And thus his subcreated myths and histories were born. No writer before him came close to doing this. And the completion to which he brought his subcreations made his works bear a striking resemblance to reality never before attained, nor since - so far. This same genius required the inclusion of poetry, if I understand Tolkien's creative process at all, for poetry is, as Squatter said, the most sublime of human endeavors.

I do not compare them: I read poetry in my spare time for pleasure, and I do not set those poets up against each other either, because that is not what poetry is about: it isn't about who's best, or who has the most critical acclaim; it's about each individual exploring their language and emotions to create beautiful pieces of writing.

Squatter, thank you for saying this. It reminds me of the the words of one of Tolkien's students to him, "You have been inside language." Or was that C.S. Lewis? In any case, I admit to not having read as much poetry as I would have liked to, but being who I am, I came to understand poetry by writing a lot of it, learning how the forms worked, trying to do the best I could in any form I put my mind to mastering. From that point of view, I have a great appreciation for Tolkien's poetry. He mastered the forms, and the poetry he wrote in any form is quite good. Best? It does not obtain.

Bêthberry

02-25-2003, 06:49 AM

Squatter, I posted a link to a newspaper which printed a small excerpt of Tolkien's translation of Beowulf on the thread "New Tolkien book found."

I find now that the link is outdated. I wonder, Bill Ferny, since we posted there briefly, if you happened to have saved a copy of Tolkien's translation? If not, I will contact the newspaper for a back issue/archival copy.

Bethberry

EDIT. Here are Tolkien's and Heaney's translations, as printed in the following:

Tolkien's monster resurfaces: The Beowulf manuscript
National Post
Monday, January 13, 2003
Page: A16
Section: Discovery
Byline: Joseph Brean
Column: Literature
Source: National Post

Tolkien's translation of Beowulf and his men setting sail:

On went the hours: on
ocean afloat
under cliff was their craft.
Now climb blithely
brave man aboard; breakers
pounding
ground the shingle. Gleaming
harness
they hove to the bosom of the
bark, armour
with cunning forged then cast
her forth
to voyage triumphant,
valiant-timbered
fleet foam twisted.

The same passage by Heaney:

Time went by, the boat was
on water,
in close under the cliffs.
Men climbed eagerly up the
gangplank,
sand churned in surf, warriors
loaded
a cargo of weapons, shining
war-gear
in the vessel's hold, then
heaved out,
away with a will in their
wood-wreathed ship.

(Copyright) From Beowulf translated by Seamus Heaney, faber and faber, 1999

[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]