
Why We Mostly Stopped Messing with Shakespeare's Language - samclemens
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/why-we-mostly-stopped-messing-with-shakespeares-language
======
Steko
I thought the 8.2% IPA to Bud Light analogy was apt, although perhaps not for
the same reasons as the guy who made it. A lot of people drink Bud Light
because it's cheap and accessible and gets the job done. Saying "just drink
the best beer" is sort of a "let them eat cake line". In the context of
Shakespeare the reality is you need a more readable modern translation for
most of his plays or lots and lots of people simply won't read them (except
when they have to for school and even there it's straight for the tl;dr cliff
notes).

I consider myself fairly well schooled and read and don't dislike Shakespeare.
However, despite going through the high school forced march of one Shakespeare
a semester/year and having read some plays solely out of interest ... I've
read (and reread) significantly more Ibsen plays than those of Shakespeare.
It's true they're shorter and prose and Ibsen's best work is spectacular (well
with a good translation) but still if Shakespeare is this shining light on a
hill why aren't more people reading him in English?

~~~
scholia
Well, Shakespeare wrote _plays_ , so it's generally a good idea to see them in
the theater, or watch cinema versions, rather than to read them. Once you have
a good idea of he action and the character interactions, it's easier to read
the language.

I once saw a performance of the "bad quarto" of Hamlet and it was a terrific
play, even though the language was all over the place.

Kurosawa's Throne of Blood is a great version of MacBeth even if it's in
Japanese.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throne_of_Blood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throne_of_Blood)

~~~
jsprogrammer
With plays it is often difficult to understand the words that are being
spoken. At least with a written version you can see what words and sentences
are being used instead of hearing mostly barely distinguishable utterances or
words that don't seem to fit together.

I have always thought it ridiculous that anyone would actually behave
(assuming the play-worlds take place in our own or a similar world) in the
manner that I have seen many Shakespearean plays acted out. I guess it is all
for dramatic effect?

~~~
scholia
All true, sadly. However, good actors speak in ways that can be heard and
understood, and good directors make the action understandable. (Understandable
in context: you might be in a fairyland where the world is different.)

It helps that when I studied Shakespeare I saw most of the productions in
Stratford on Avon, but lots of plays are available on DVD now. In the old
days, eg to take in Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet, I had to go to the cinema
three nights in a row....

------
Amorymeltzer
Good history, glad Bowdlerization was brought up. Of particular note, from the
final paragraph:

>What is genuinely radical in the commission is not the process but the people
involved... more than half of the selected playwrights will be women, and more
than half will be writers of color. Shakespeare’s scripts have always resulted
from collaborations among playwrights, actors, and editors... those
collaborators were white men.

I'm a very big Shakespeare fan, and think his words are among if not the
greatest words written in English, but this whole debate is absurd. It's art.
Let artists create art. People who will enjoy it will enjoy it, those who
won't won't. I don't expect every Jane Austen fan to enjoy "Pride and
Prejudice and Zombies" or Doris Kearns Goodwin to appreciate "Abraham Lincoln:
Vampire Hunter" (actually, I bet she loves it), but so what? The source
material is public domain, so let's enjoy the beauty of the commons.

~~~
mef
It's not clear what debate you're referring to.

Was not the point of the quoted paragraph that, in the past, collaborators on
Shakespeare's works were restricted to white men but that's no longer the
case? Is there a debate there or is that uncontroversial?

~~~
Amorymeltzer
Separate thoughts. Quoting it as particularly of note/value, then giving a
thought on the article's issue as a whole.

------
littlewing
Listen to this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s)

The modern pronunciation we're familiar with kills much of the rhyme and
meaning.

~~~
rootbear
I read Crystal's book, "Pronouncing Shakespeare", a few years ago and found it
fascinating. I hope to hear one of these "OP" (Original Pronunciation)
performances some day.

~~~
mrec
I've seen a couple of them and I can thoroughly recommend it if you get the
chance. It's not just pronunciation; the OP is noticeably brisker and more
natural-sounding, and extremely accessible.

------
bhaak
You know who didn't stop messing with Shakespeare's language?

Translators.

Thankfully, we don't need to read Shakespeare in the original Klingon but even
then, the first English translation is already 400 years old. And it shows.

As a non-native speaker of English, the standard English version that is
written adds another difficulty for enjoying his works. You not only need to
look up all those obscure mythological references but also you need to
understand the small but important differences in language. English has
changed since the days of Shakespeare and as even native speakers struggle
with that, it is even harder for non natives.

German has a long tradition of translations of Shakespeare (the first one
dates from 1604!). The German "standard" translation is the Schlegel-Tieck
joint translation from 1826 although it has been updated in parts ever since.
But there are other translations as well. Wikipedia claims that the sonnets
have been translated into German almost 50 times since 1967.

I think some native speakers have a problem with "translating" Shakespeare
into modern English as the English of Shakespeare is still quite
understandable. Just let English develop some 200 or 300 years longer and such
translation will become a non-issue.

Unless the English speakers do something similar like the Greeks did and let
old classics influence how they develop their language. But given the laissez-
faire attitude of the English native speakers in the past and the influence of
L2 speakers on the English language, I don't expect this to happen.

------
foxhedgehog
As somebody who studied Shakespeare, it's worth noting that the language would
have been foreign to his audience at the time as well. The obscurity of the
language amplifies its purpose in many places, and it is kind of a fool's
errand to try to iron out its various kinks.

------
afarrell
> What is genuinely radical in the commission is not the process but the
> people involved...more than half of the selected playwrights will be women,
> and more than half will be writers of color. Shakespeare’s scripts have
> always resulted from collaborations among playwrights, actors, and editors.
> For most of the history I have traced, those collaborators were white men.

To what degree is it really true that there isn't a history of women or black
men re-interpreting Shakespeare? I would be pretty surprised to learn that was
the case. Now, it would certainly be interesting if this work was being
approached by folks with a strong background in the artistic and poetic
traditions that originate from various colored communities. But that wasn't
what the article said and you cannot presume it. It is certainly not the case
that any given black lit-nerd can rap.

""" I sit with Shakespeare and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm
in arm with Balzac and Dumas, where smiling men and welcoming women glide in
gilded halls. From out the caves of evening that swing between the strong-
limbed earth and the tracery of the stars, I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and
what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn nor
condescension. So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the Veil. Is this the life
you grudge us, O knightly America? Is this the life you long to change into
the dull red hideousness of Georgia? Are you so afraid lest peering from this
high Pisgah, between Philistine and Amalekite, we sight the Promised Land? """
\-- WEB DuBois, whom you should all totally read if you like a certain
delicious if ornate style of prose.

~~~
hackuser
> To what degree is it really true that there isn't a history of women or
> black men re-interpreting Shakespeare? I would be pretty surprised to learn
> that was the case.

I'm not sure why you would be surprised, but through most of history most of
scholarship in the West has been done by white men. Even now, in some
departments (math, for example), women are rare and in most departments
minorities are rare.

DuBois was notable as an exception. Look at all the other scholars of his
time; do you notice something odd about the demographics?

------
Startalker
For the most part this was good; the ending ruined it.

I am a man of color and an immigrant. I am sick of the trend of people
praising a work simply because its author happened to be of a different skin
color or gender.

Judge us on our merits. Not on our fulfillment of your agenda.

~~~
devindotcom
Meritocracy is a great idea if the playing field is level. It isn't, and for
hundreds of years the voices of women and people of color have been
systematically oppressed — but I don't need to tell you that.

The deliberate inclusion of more women and POC is a conscious choice to combat
this. Their works will be judged on their merits - but first they must have
the opportunity to be judged, and that's something to which they do not have
equal access compared to white men.

~~~
Startalker
I hear this often enough at Uni.

What bugs me about this is that the people who would have benefit from these
policies, such as my ancestors, are long dead and gone. The people who
oppressed them are also dead.

While I can buy your argument for poor people in general, I can't understand
applying a non-meritocratic basis on the basis of gender or race. A rich
minority boy or white girl has access to a great deal of resources more than a
poor backwoods white boy.

And the sort of symbolic victory style stuff that goes on in both academic
circles and in magazines just doesn't help us at all.

I would have given anything for there to be resources about how to dress well
in western clothing, find and eat healthy religiously-acceptable food, and
understand the intricacies of western culture. But instead I got a self-
congratulatory lecture on embracing our native culture. What good is that at
all?

~~~
dragonwriter
> What bugs me about this is that the people who would have benefit from these
> policies, such as my ancestors, are long dead and gone.

The people who _directly_ benefited (or suffered) from _de jure_
discrimination by race in the US aren't even dead and gone -- there are people
alive today that were _adults_ when those policies existed -- much less the
people that indirectly benefited by way of, e.g., having an advantage (resp.,
disadvantage) in opportunity because their _parents_ wealth/education/etc. was
directly influenced by those policies.

~~~
eru
Compare [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/26/compound-interest-is-
th...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/26/compound-interest-is-the-least-
powerful-force-in-the-universe/)

------
TrevorJ
As I started reading this I was thinking: "Don't compare it to craft beer,
don't compare it to...damn, they went there."

I think Shakespeare is wonderful, but like many things in life (craft beer
included) we sometimes mistake obscurity for artistry. It's not good art
_because_ it's an acquired taste, it's good _in spite of this_.

------
Asbostos
No mention of how the new work will be licensed. If it's not going into the
public domain then that'll automatically make it worth less than the original.

