[HN Gopher] "Beowulf": A Horror Show
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       "Beowulf": A Horror Show
        
       Author : Caiero
       Score  : 17 points
       Date   : 2022-09-26 03:23 UTC (19 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.publicbooks.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.publicbooks.org)
        
       | wrp wrote:
       | Completely disagree with her thesis. I've studied Beowulf quite a
       | bit, and I've never thought of it as a horror story. Beowulf just
       | doesn't fit the horror genre.
       | 
       | > _...horror leaves readers or viewers with...a sense that, even
       | though the story is over, we still have something to be afraid
       | of._
       | 
       | Unlike in the horror genre, Beowulf depicts danger coming from a
       | well defined source, and conclusively eliminated by the hero's
       | actions.
        
         | yamtaddle wrote:
         | I'd agree that the first two sections heavily feature motifs
         | and scenes that read as _very_ horror to a modern audience,
         | however they were original intended. But they 're mashed
         | together with roots-in-very-ancient-literature (e.g. Gilgamesh)
         | nigh-superhero stuff that takes the edge off, ultimately, in a
         | kind of jarring way that I expect is off-putting to a lot of
         | modern readers.
         | 
         | The third section (the dragon) reads so differently to me that
         | I can't imagine it was assembled around the same time, by the
         | same person. Maybe one of those two things, but not both. And I
         | don't get any horror out of it whatsoever, personally. A kind
         | of apocalyptic-melancholy, maybe, but not horror.
        
           | LanceH wrote:
           | Everything from just one hill past where the townsfolk
           | regularly travel was of the unknown. It was _known_ that
           | something strange could be living out there -- because there
           | were strange things living out there. There was history of
           | weird things happening to people who ventured too far away
           | from the familiar. What we might perceive as expected (OMG a
           | giant white bear!!!) can be very unfamiliar to those who didn
           | 't grow up with an ABC book of animals.
           | 
           | But really, read the first couple of pages and tell me that
           | it's horror. It's a hero story, and it's not horror -- he's
           | just up against a good villain. It's more of a western --
           | drifter pulls into town on his horse, gets deputized to take
           | down the out of town rancher demonizing the good people of
           | the town.
        
             | yamtaddle wrote:
             | This is... not really in disagreement with what I wrote, I
             | think? I wouldn't call the first two sections horror, but
             | the description of the terror that Beowulf and (later) his
             | mother wreak on the inhabitants of Heorot is _quite_
             | horror, at least to modern eyes. The way the hall is
             | _hopelessly haunted_ by this terror, much fallen from its
             | glory days in ways that are plainly visible, and the
             | inhabitants unable to escape their fate, is, separately,
             | even pretty damn gothic-horror specifically (the extensive
             | and detailed descriptions of pure carnage and its
             | psychological effects are rather _not_ gothic-horror, but
             | something else). The environs and inhabitants of Grendel 's
             | Mother's deep mire-home, for that matter--carnage and
             | terrible monsters are all over in hero fiction, as with The
             | Iliad's blow-by-blow slaughter on the battlefield, or
             | Gilgamesh's forest-monster, but the presentation isn't like
             | _that_.
             | 
             | But overall, yes, it's not _really_ horror because of the
             | figure of Beowulf, who 's basically Superman, and has the
             | exact same effect on the story that introducing Superman to
             | many horror stories would.
             | 
             | Pretty heavy horror motifs, imagery, et c., but
             | structurally and viewed as a whole, not really horror. I
             | agree that it's not best-characterized as horror, but
             | absolutely see why someone would make the connection, and
             | even think it might be useful to do so. Taking it as a
             | horror-flavored hero tale isn't too far off, I'd say.
             | "Superman wanders into a remote town terrorized by actual
             | demons, and, predictably, easily wrecks their shit and
             | saves (almost) everyone", maybe. The settings and premise
             | are pretty solidly horror and are presented as such, but
             | the story, not so much.
             | 
             | Though, again, I get little or none of that from the third
             | act, which is totally disconnected narratively from the
             | first two anyway, aside from also starring Beowulf. It
             | seems far more straightforward to me, and reads a lot like,
             | say, a biblical hero-tale--there's a monster terrorizing
             | the countryside and murdering away much like Grendel, but
             | we don't get the horrifying descriptions of wanton murder,
             | but instead Beowulf's followers holding back and quaking in
             | their boots while he saves the day. Though that one's hard
             | to read with fresh eyes if you've read The Hobbit and/or
             | LOTR, because it has so much influence on them, and I'm
             | sure being familiar with them colors one's reading of that
             | section, with the result that it's hard _not_ to read it as
             | proto-fantasy. The very _voice_ of it even reads more
             | modern and like something from that genre, in sharp
             | contrast to the prior two sections.
        
           | MichaelCollins wrote:
           | > _I 'd agree that the first two sections heavily feature
           | motifs and scenes that read as very horror to a modern
           | audience_
           | 
           | Demonstrated well by _The 13th Warrior_ (which excludes the
           | third section.)
        
             | yamtaddle wrote:
             | Also, the (now quite old) video game Darklands, which takes
             | a "what if the stuff dark-ages people thought was real...
             | _was_ real " approach, and the result is surely horror.
        
         | ctdonath wrote:
         | Likewise. Have read it several times, clearly heroic action
         | (albeit perhaps gruesome), never seemed "horror". Never
         | occurred to me there was "something to be afraid of" after the
         | overwrought funeral, at least nothing more than the usual risks
         | of existence in the age.
         | 
         | Horror evokes existential dread, a [quasi-]supernatural threat
         | against an unwilling [relatively] impotent protagonist, often
         | with an ambiguous ending. The monsters may be terrifying to the
         | Danes in general, but they are not the protagonists.
         | 
         | Action evokes willing combat, antagonist(s) viewed as
         | challenger or threat to vanquish by a duty/honor-bound
         | protagonist. Beowulf travels far to engage the heard-of horror,
         | as challenge for pride and later protecting his people.
         | 
         | Beowulf sees the first monster as a voluntary challenge, the
         | second an obligatory follow-up, and the third a duty. Any
         | subsequent vague threats are just the way of humanity; this is
         | not "and they lived happily ever after."
        
         | nix23 wrote:
         | She already shows her lack of knowledge in her first sentence
         | -> "The Dark Ages"
        
           | yamtaddle wrote:
           | As far as I can tell the term remains in limited use by
           | modern scholars, largely to describe periods & places of the
           | time span traditionally so-labeled that happen to be
           | particularly lacking in primary sources so are indeed, in
           | that sense, "dark", as in lacking illumination and obscured.
           | Seems to me that usage would fit OK for the setting of
           | Beowulf. Or it may have been employed in the colloquial
           | sense, which also seems fine and clear, IMO.
        
       | tptacek wrote:
       | My question: is it _actually_ true that swear words and slang
       | have no place in epics? Like, if we consider all the major epics
       | in their time, we won 't find the historical equivalent of swears
       | or abusive language of any sort in them?
       | 
       | For starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_obscenity
        
         | yamtaddle wrote:
         | Beowulf (like most Scandinavian or Scandinavian-influenced
         | writing around that time) basically has rap-battles in it. You
         | want to put in modern slang and swearing and such, that's where
         | I'd do it, personally.
         | 
         | [EDIT] Those parts are also fucking boring in most
         | translations, so would be the most-improved by such an
         | approach.
        
       | unethical_ban wrote:
       | Regarding Headley's work: At what point does a "translation"
       | become "Interpretation"? There seems to be no argument in the
       | several reviews/comments I have seen of the book, that she is
       | claiming a literal translation or to understand Beowulf in a
       | traditional sense. As a non-lit major, it seems past writers have
       | attempted to capture the mechanisms and literal meaning and tone
       | of the original, in the most accessible way possible for the
       | language and dialect of the time. Headly said "fuck it" and used
       | particularly modern slang to make almost a parody of the telling.
       | 
       | I'm not offended by it, but /if/ it can be said that prior
       | translators kept their bias and creativity to the minimum
       | required to maintain story and poetic elements, she went far
       | beyond such shackles. It therefore would never be considered a
       | canonical work, even if it sees uptake in some classrooms.
        
         | yamtaddle wrote:
         | Yeah, even this fairly-positive (ultimately) review ends up
         | painting it more as an adaptation or workin-inspired-by-X than
         | a translation. Almost a parody, even.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-09-26 23:01 UTC)