Heren Istarion:The November 27th 2002 press release "Wheaton College Tolkien Scholar Mike Drout Discovered, Publishing Lost Tolkien Books" states in reference to Tolkien's translation of Beowulf:
"...noting that in his opinion Tolkien's translation is superior to that of Seamus Heaney." Can you expand upon this for us and why do you feel this is so? What does Tolkien bring to the poem that Heaney does not?

Professor Drout:Tolkien's translation is accurate, while Heaney's (which I love, and which I use to teach) is more of an adaptation of the poem to Heaney's own poetic tastes. Heaney also relied on a crib and lots of advice, and he didn't really get into the cruces of the poem, but accepted the received tradition. Tolkien, in the prose translation in particular, kept so close to the original Anglo-Saxon, and knew the original Anglo-Saxon so well,that his translation, even in prose, has the same spare, uncompromising beauty as the original. His verse translation is simply great, and it is a terrible shame that he never finished it.

Heren Istarion:Some members of Heren Istarion are reading Tolkien's works for the first after viewing the films, as well as delving into what his influences were,like the sagas and the eddas, as well as Beowulf. In regard to their reading Beowulf for the first time how can Beowulf and the Critics assist them in their reading?

Professor Drout:Beowulf and the Critics sets up the various debates about Beowulf and shows where Tolkien is coming from both in his essay and in his fiction. The book demonstrates how immensely learned and well-read Tolkien was in both literature and scholarship (even though he said he hadn't, that was more of a joke: he'd read nearly everything published on Beowulf). It makes much the same argument as the published essay, but it is much easier to follow, since all the compression and veiled hints of the published version are spelled out in detail. It is also a beautifully crafted piece of rhetoric and a glimpse at a genius at work. It also explains why Beowulf is constructed the way it is, with the digressions, the three monster fights (each different, but also related to the other), the speeches and sermon-like passage. Beowulf is sometimes an acquired taste, and Tolkien's work can help you acquire it faster (though a good teacher in a medieval lit.class could also help).

Heren Istarion:What are your thoughts on the film version of The Two Towers? Do you find any changes in character( Faramir, Frodo in Osgiliath) story or environment necessary for the film process? Does it detract from or add to the story?

Professor Drout: For some reason the changes in TT bothered me a lot more than changes In FR. I could forgive many of the changes in FR because they were Clearly meant to cram a huge book into less than three hours. But some of the changes in TT actually lengthened the film and were really pointless. Aragorn falling over the cliff and disappearing for a while was an opportunity to get Arwen flashbacks into the film, but I think in the end totally unnecessary (and undercuts the loss of Gandalf in FR). The change in Faramir seems to me to have been motivated by the desire to answer some bad, old criticism of Tolkien: if the Ring is so deadly, why is Faramir unscathed? But I think that is stupid criticism, since the Ring works onpeople based upon their characters.

I also think that the whole Ring being out in the open, the confrontation with the Lord of the Nazgul in Osgiliath, etc., showed some disrespect for the intelligence of the audience. And the quick trip to Osgiliath and back, and the sudden arrival of Haldir at Helm's Deep, etc., just served to make Middle-earth really too small. I don't understand why Jackson would want to create that effect at the same time he's going for the amazingly huge depictions of scenery,etc., and I think it's one of the areas where the Hollywoodization really weakens the overall power of the film.

I did love the accuracy of the portrayal of Anglo-Saxon art and architecture in Rohan: it's good enough that I can use it to supplement my slides from the British Museum for teaching. The scenery is, as was in FR, beautiful, and the actress who plays Eowyn quite good, I think. Gollum is a technical achievement, but I also thought that Jackson went over the top in his arguments with himself: Tolkien accomplishes exactly the same thing with 1/3 the number of exchanges in TT. The battle sequences were amazing, and show that certain things actually do work better on film than in literature (I love Helm's Deep, but my students actually disliked the description of the battle, while they just reported that they loved the movie version).