Talk:Beowulf

Star Trek: Voyager takeoff

Adding the Star Trek: Voyager takeoff episode might be fun. Misty MH (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Doubtful whether it'd justify a mention, unless a scholar has singled it out for discussion in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Interpretations based on Heaney's translation

Edits have recently been made based on Seamus Heaney's translation. However, Heaney's version is a modern poet's personal rendering; Heaney was not a medievalist or a scholar of Old English, and his version cannot be relied upon for any particular word or interpretation of any specific passage (crux or not). He might choose to write "knife" instead of "sword" to fit the sound or metre of a particular line, whether it was correct (if he indeed knew) or not. This is in my view obviously unsafe as an approach, and certainly not encyclopedic; his version says little or nothing about the original poem. I've given an example in Translating Beowulf of how his approach compares with that of other translators: that is a neutral matter, with no assertion of Heaney's correctness or otherwise. Uncritically adopting Heaney's diction as if it were the definitive text is, on the other hand, quite unjustifiable, and we shouldn't go there. Accordingly I've reverted the most recent edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Elided metaphors

I haven't been able to find a definition for elided metaphor. It would be good to add an explanation where the term is used, or else to link to a new section in the article on metaphors and provide a definition there. B.Bryant (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Nor me. I've removed it. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

A poem, and (perhaps) an epic

The lead needs to begin, as it always has done, by stating plainly that Beowulf is a poem. For the average non-scholarly reader (think sporty student doing an English minor, forced to do a bit of (Old) Eng. Lit. on the side in between sports, carousing, and courting ...), it is way non-obvious that "epic" implies "poetry", however tautologous that might appear to the 0.0001% of the population who make a study of that matter. Recall, perhaps, that marketing people call The Lord of the Rings (book or more likely film) an "epic", and you will notice that in popular usage, "epic" can apply to prose, film, perhaps music (Wagner?), oh, ... long pause ... [afterthought, much more doubtfully] and are there also epic poems? From this perspective, I hope you -- or at least, other editors! -- may see that we do really need to explain that this is a poem and that it has been labelled an epic. We insiders also know that Tolkien was highly critical of the "epic" label for the poem, but we'll not worry about that now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Tolkien's personal opinion may be noted, but history has already made its final declaration. "Epic" it is. ~2026-20513-58 (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Updating "Further Reading"

Hi all,

The "further reading" section is badly out of date. I'd like to suggest that we collectively decide on a few recent articles and books to add and possibly consider a few outdated ones to remove. Please reply with any suggestions. Tbk23 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! The status of FR sections is always a bit doubtful, as Wikipedia states clearly that it is not a catalogue, and as you can see, there are many 'Sources' actually in use in the 'Citations'. The FR section is therefore just a bit of background and can't do more than suggest a few major documents that may interest readers who want to go further. Chadwick, Chance, Heaney, Tolkien, and von Sydow are obviously distinguished instances here. We can probably drop several of the others in the FR list if folks feel it's getting too long. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)