Compare and Contrast Raffel's Translation to Heaney's Translation of Beowulf

If there is one word that can describe Raffel’s translation of Beowulf compared to Heaney’s, the word is simplified. Many literary techniques, including syntax, diction, and figurative language, are either absent or expedited in Raffel’s translation. Therefore, his version would be a much easier read for his audience in terms of understanding the plot and the language.

The first difference seen once Heaney’s and Raffel’s translations are juxtaposed is the use of capital letters. Unlike Heaney’s translation, Raffel’s translation uses a capital letter at the beginning of every line. His use of these capital letters can be assumed to be for his unique style; however, only more confusion is created. On top of capital usage for sentence beginnings and proper nouns, his overuse of capital letters can be sometimes frustrating for the reader because it makes the last line seem as it is a complete thought, when grammatically it is not. In the end, his usage of capital letters does not pose a significant problem, but only a slight impediment.

The most obvious difference between the two translations of Beowulf as the story continues is the length. This length difference is because Raffel’s translation completely disregards the trip to Herot and the voyage into the city. The translation skips directly to Beowulf’s talk with Lord Hygeloc of Herot , in which he is explaining why he is present in the village. Although it may seem like a lot of information is left out of the story, the information actually is quite irrelevant to the plot. In the scene before the voyage, which is present in Heaney’s translation, the reason in which Beowulf is traveling to Herot is disclosed. Therefore, Heaney’s addition of the voyage is just for pure description with no meaning to the plot because nothing new is addressed. Raffel’s abandonment of this part of extraneous information, in my opinion, makes the story more straightforward and succinct resulting in a simpler comprehension.

In terms of poetic devices, these two translations were mostly different also. Heaney’s translation made a much better use of alliterations which added to the nice, flowing sound of his version of Beowulf. On the other hand, Raffel did not add these alliterations; therefore, did not have these neat accents on the sound. Also, the diction from Heaney’s translation was much more complex than Raffel’s. The