Tolkien is Not Yeats

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

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 ]