While I agree that the exploration of possible historical connections was great - they definitely did a bang-up job in the research department there and drew some fascinating parallels - I have a few bones to pick with the analysis of the poem by their panel of experts. I will disclaim here that I am not an expert in English lit; however I am a member of a living history group whose period of focus is early Medieval northern Europe, and I've also studied it in depth in a Medieval Lit course. My biggest question is, which translation were these experts going on? It seems that they had a lot of info about the characters and events that I recall being different in the poem, or not there at all. My own experience is in reading both the Frederick Rebsamen version and the "Beowulf Bible", the Seamus Heaney translation. For starters, Grendel in his revenge on Hrothgar and the Danes is not only a God-cursed monster bent on anti-Christian (note that it is never explicitly stated that the Danes are Christian) havoc, but also in a way a deus ex machina to temper Hrothgar's hubris - his pride in his kingdom and his magnificent Heorot. This is actually pretty brilliant on the part of the poet(s); don't be too vain, which God doesn't like, or God's punishment of your sinful pride will be delivered by a jealous Hell-fiend. This is the reason why Hrothgar is left untouched, so he can wallow in the waste that his pride has brought to his people - not because he has a magic throne with a God-powered force field around it. As for the Dragon, the slave is not so much overcome by the temptation of the treasure as the practicality of "Gee if I being back a nicy shiny goblet maybe Beowulf won't kill me for running away". I'm also pretty sure that the fight starts in its lair and ends on a cliff-top above, overlooking the sea - Beowulf and Wiglaf slay the Dragon and Beowulf succumbs to his wounds. I don't recall anything specific about a nasty, festering, swollen neck injury, but I Beowulf does order his men to push the carcass of the Dragon over the cliff and into the waves below. Moreover, they make way too much of the Geat-Swede battle, which is never presented as real-time narrative but rather explained in summation of what has happened since we last left our hero in Denmark 50 years ago. Important, to be sure, but if it's a device to explain a possible connection to the battle on Lake Vanern, I can understand the focus. However they dropped the ball by failing to go into the expedition into the Frisian-held Rhine valley led by Beowulf's uncle, Hygelac, king of the Geats, wherein Hygelac is killed and his young son - Beowulf's cousin - Heardred becomes king, backed by Beowulf even when Hygelac's widow Hygd tries to crown Beowulf instead.
They also failed utterly to go into Beowulf's two challenges, the first by one of Hrothgar's thegns, a mighty warrior named Wulfgar who questions Beowulf at the doors of Heorot and admits him after a brief conversation, and Hrothgar's companion Unferth. Unferth seems to play a sort of chamberlain-esque role at Heorot, though his exact position in the entourage of Hrothgar is never fully explained. He challenges Beowulf to a battle of words that Beowulf wins in the retelling of his famous swimming contest against his companion Breca through monster-infested water. This is extremely crucial to the Danes accepting this foreign champion as their new protector - remember that the Norse valued cunning, since any fool can become strong enough to wield a sword well but the best warriors in the Sagas use their brains as well. This is one of the most important confrontations in the poem, because here we learn that Beowulf isn't just a meathead with a pointy stick but a man worth being called hero.
That said, the analysis of Beowulf's psyche as a gloryhound is spot on for a Viking warlord, I just kinda wish they went for an actor who looked more the part - in a world where men wore long hair and full beards as part of their cultural machismo and only young boys and slaves went clean-shaven and close-cut, he would've been laughed out of Denmark.
reply
share
the thorn of Thurisaz
15 years ago
The History Channel has had much dubious programming lately, but something like this is a refreshing change of pace.
Well said.
MonsterQuest,
Ice Truckers (or something; I seriously don't care enough to look it up to correct myself), even my interest in
The Universe has been waning as of late. It's nice to see them do a show that is both of historic value (i.e., the name of their channel) and doesn't do a bunch of far-fetched speculation or explore out-the-ass theories.
----
Formless, faithless, and free.
reply
share
GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom
15 years ago
Good points, Rogue, but if they'd throw in everything you just brought up, then the episode would have needed to be 2 or 3 hours long. They probably felt that was too long.
reply
share
rogueleader7223
15 years ago
Piffle! A two hour bit on Beowulf isn't nearly long enough! But I suppose you're right, it would have to be more of a stand-alone special then an episode of the series. However, given how well they did with drawing the historical connections, and the fact that they suddenly switched from Greek deities to Beowulf, I'm kinda psyched hoping they'll delve into the Eddas and Sagas. I'd pay money to see them act out Thor punting Lit the Dwarf into Baldur's funeral pyre for giggling during the eulogy...
reply
share