Does Shakespeare need to be "translated" to modern... - Page 2

NicksmomESQ · ‎08-19-2014

When I was in school reading Shakespeare we all bought the Barron / Cliff notes to help us through it.It didn't make us lazy or dumb.We enjoyed it more because it helped us to better understand it. Shakespeare is like a foreign language much like any other.I see nothing wrong with getting a little help translating it.

Kids today are under a lot of pressure. I see nothing wrong with providing translations to Shakespeare's plays.It will keep the literature alive.

maestra · ‎03-09-2010

Zefferelli's R and J used the literature w/young adults/teens in the appropriate roles.

The language was the same. It is beautiful and should not be changed ie.

'Yo! I'm seein' the streetlight and the moon...is that you, Jules?' ( Hark, What light on yonder window breaks? Is it Juliet or the moon?-paraphrased balcony scene, mistakes are my own)

Somehow, Shakespeare loses much in modern translation.

Burnsite · ‎03-10-2010

Translation/updating of Shakespeare's language has often been done. I think someone (Maurice Charney?) did a hipster type version back in the 70s. Charles and Mary Lamb turned the plays into prose for chidlren: Tales from Shakespeare, early 1800s.

The original text will always be there for those who want to hear the style of the author himself.

Puzzle Piece · ‎06-29-2010

No.

Let people learn their grammar first.

Never Forget the Native American Indian Holocaust

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

It was done years ago.

LAMBS TALES FROM SHAKESPEARE

BY CHARLES AND MARY LAMB

My mother read them to me when I was a child. Later, it was much easier for me to read and understand them in high school.

In turn, I read them to my daughter as a child.

Maudelyn · ‎09-08-2016

The Bible has been translated into easily understandable language, making it more accessible and understandable to those who wish to read it. I see no problem with doing the same for other types of books.

Barbara-QVC · ‎10-12-2015

Moved:

This post has been removed by QVC because it is argumentative

jaxs mom · ‎04-18-2012

I wouldn't say that this falls into the area of "need" but at the same time adapting the classics ( regardless of era) has happened from time immemorial. I do get that this forum has an over abundance of hand wringers bent on deriding anything they think is a change but you fail to see that you're looking at this through your own lens colored by what you grew up with and that's all.

Don't Change Your Authenticity for Approval

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@Maudelyn wrote:
The Bible has been translated into easily understandable language, making it more accessible and understandable to those who wish to read it. I see no problem with doing the same for other types of books.

***************************

That's true @Maudelyn and the same is done for operas. I was going to the opera with my mother by the time I was eight. She would get the story and read it to me before we saw it so I knew what was going on. Most were sung in Italian, so it was a great help.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@Burnsite wrote:
Translation/updating of Shakespeare's language has often been done. I think someone (Maurice Charney?) did a hipster type version back in the 70s. Charles and Mary Lamb turned the plays into prose for chidlren: Tales from Shakespeare, early 1800s.

The original text will always be there for those who want to hear the style of the author himself.

*************************

I just read this from @Burnsite

I remember that well, and it was so important! Kids in very poor neighborhoods knew nothing of Shakespeare and didn't want to know. There was nothing they could relate to.

He turned it into rap, if I recall, and they loved it. That's where they began, with the stories. Later they went on to read it as originally written.

NOW THAT IS A TEACHER!