9 ms·

Why We Mostly Stopped Messing with Shakespeare's Language

58 points by samclemens 11y ago

Amorymeltzer 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    Separate thoughts. Quoting it as particularly of note/value, then giving a thought on the article's issue as a whole.
littlewing 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  From the article, the new translations should be 'putting the “same kind of pressure on the language”—rhyme, rhythm, metaphor, rhetoric—“as Shakespeare put on his.”' Obviously somebody else's existing translation isn't the same or they wouldn't be doing it again.
bhaak 11y ago
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.
Steko 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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
  - Steko 11y ago
    re: plays, sure but I made an intentional comparison with Ibsen who is also a dramatist. re: Throne of Blood. Yeah it's great and that's sorta the point of wanting modern translations. Shakespeare, freed from the yoke of Old Elizabethan, can be more vital and approachable to modern audiences.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    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?
Asbostos 11y ago
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.
Startalker 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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?
    - eru 11y ago
      > But instead I got a self-congratulatory lecture on embracing our native culture. What good is that at all? Apparently it's not about actually helping people, let alone poor people or minorities. My guess is that those measures are about signalling one's factional allegiance. See also http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html
afarrell 11y ago
> 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.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  > To what degree is it really true that there isn't a history of women or black men re-interpreting Shakespeare? The bit you quoted does not say that. It's really frustrating that all the top-voted comments on this fascinating article are nitpicking over the writer's racial politics in the last paragraph. (Edit: Parent was the top comment at the time I posted.)
- hackuser 11y ago
  > 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?
TrevorJ 11y ago
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.
foxhedgehog 11y ago
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.

58 points by samclemens 11y ago

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 11y ago
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 11y ago
  Separate thoughts. Quoting it as particularly of note/value, then giving a thought on the article's issue as a whole.

littlewing 11y ago

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 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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.
Asbostos 11y ago
From the article, the new translations should be 'putting the “same kind of pressure on the language”—rhyme, rhythm, metaphor, rhetoric—“as Shakespeare put on his.”' Obviously somebody else's existing translation isn't the same or they wouldn't be doing it again.

bhaak 11y ago

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.

Steko 11y ago

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 11y ago
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
- Steko 11y ago
  re: plays, sure but I made an intentional comparison with Ibsen who is also a dramatist. re: Throne of Blood. Yeah it's great and that's sorta the point of wanting modern translations. Shakespeare, freed from the yoke of Old Elizabethan, can be more vital and approachable to modern audiences.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  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?

Asbostos 11y ago

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.

Startalker 11y ago

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 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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?
  - eru 11y ago
    > But instead I got a self-congratulatory lecture on embracing our native culture. What good is that at all? Apparently it's not about actually helping people, let alone poor people or minorities. My guess is that those measures are about signalling one's factional allegiance. See also http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html

afarrell 11y ago

> 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.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> To what degree is it really true that there isn't a history of women or black men re-interpreting Shakespeare? The bit you quoted does not say that. It's really frustrating that all the top-voted comments on this fascinating article are nitpicking over the writer's racial politics in the last paragraph. (Edit: Parent was the top comment at the time I posted.)
hackuser 11y ago
> 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?

TrevorJ 11y ago

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.

foxhedgehog 11y ago

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.