3 ms·

>1) Shakespeare didn’t use literary language. His works were written in the common parlance of the day. I'm pretty sure it was a mix. >3) “Early Modern Englis

>1) Shakespeare didn’t use literary language. His works were written in the common parlance of the day. I'm pretty sure it was a mix. >3) “Early Modern English” is “Modern” only relative to “Middle” and “Old” English. It isn’t modern in any normative sense. It’s just a linguistic classification, not to be taken literally in casual parlance. I don't remember a time when I found Shakespeare difficult reading, but I guess I started reading him at 16 at which point I had already quite a long and varied reading life. I suppose advanced High School English classes could have the original Shakespeare and the non-advanced the modernized, but I think it's doing a disservice to those kids in Ohio who would understand to give them what I would at that age have referred to as the dumbed down versions, and which at this age I still have some tendency to think of as being of lesser quality. >If I see a play live, I have to read it beforehand in order to refresh my memory. If I haven’t read it recently, I have no clue what the actors are saying. there's a lot of actors who don't read Shakespeare well, and tend to hit the rhythm exactly and heavily, like a bad poetry reading - this makes the text harder to understand.

saghm 2y ago
> there's a lot of actors who don't read Shakespeare well, and tend to hit the rhythm exactly and heavily, like a bad poetry reading - this makes the text harder to understand If actors can't even be expected to perform it right, why would we expect students to be able to read it right? This sounds like even more of an argument to translate it for modern audiences
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  >This sounds like even more of an argument to translate it for modern audiences when speech is uttered in an unnatural rhythm it is harder to understand what is being said then when reading the same text at one's leisure, it is not quite the argument you imagine.
  - saghm 2y ago
    The point is that modern actors struggling to deliver the correct rhythm is a pretty good sign that the language is hard to parse for a modern person, and that will affect the ability of students to be able to read and understand it.
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      Well, there are students who are able to read and understand it, and my experience is that the students who can do these things get offended when you dumb things down for them. I suppose these are incompatible viewpoints of the point of education. My viewpoint is that the system should help students get to the point where they understand the more complicated Shakespearean texts and not offend the students who already handle those texts for what I am loathe to describe as the "benefit" of the students that don't. I have to ask a question - what do you see as the benefits of teaching Shakespeare as literature? I see the following: learning classics of the English Language and why they are classics, learning foundational parts of the English language that will often be referred to by other authors. The first benefit seems to be removed by not teaching the original text - Shakespearean plots are seldom the reason one thinks the plays are so impressive, Shakespearean language is. Remove the language you remove a benefit for the student, albeit giving them another benefit, allowing them to pass this stupid English class with less work. I can understand the urge to have a simpler version of stories for helping those who are not yet advanced enough to read the original, when I was 8 I had some simplified versions of Mark Twain and Dickens to read that I am grateful for, but on the other hand High School is pretty close to the point where students might never get the benefits of Shakespeare conveyed to them by a teacher who hopefully is adequate to convey those benefits (I have to admit I am not especially optimistic about these teachers existing, based on the Utah high schools I attended, but such is the American educational system)

saghm 2y ago

> there's a lot of actors who don't read Shakespeare well, and tend to hit the rhythm exactly and heavily, like a bad poetry reading - this makes the text harder to understand If actors can't even be expected to perform it right, why would we expect students to be able to read it right? This sounds like even more of an argument to translate it for modern audiences

bryanrasmussen 2y ago
>This sounds like even more of an argument to translate it for modern audiences when speech is uttered in an unnatural rhythm it is harder to understand what is being said then when reading the same text at one's leisure, it is not quite the argument you imagine.
- saghm 2y ago
  The point is that modern actors struggling to deliver the correct rhythm is a pretty good sign that the language is hard to parse for a modern person, and that will affect the ability of students to be able to read and understand it.
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    Well, there are students who are able to read and understand it, and my experience is that the students who can do these things get offended when you dumb things down for them. I suppose these are incompatible viewpoints of the point of education. My viewpoint is that the system should help students get to the point where they understand the more complicated Shakespearean texts and not offend the students who already handle those texts for what I am loathe to describe as the "benefit" of the students that don't. I have to ask a question - what do you see as the benefits of teaching Shakespeare as literature? I see the following: learning classics of the English Language and why they are classics, learning foundational parts of the English language that will often be referred to by other authors. The first benefit seems to be removed by not teaching the original text - Shakespearean plots are seldom the reason one thinks the plays are so impressive, Shakespearean language is. Remove the language you remove a benefit for the student, albeit giving them another benefit, allowing them to pass this stupid English class with less work. I can understand the urge to have a simpler version of stories for helping those who are not yet advanced enough to read the original, when I was 8 I had some simplified versions of Mark Twain and Dickens to read that I am grateful for, but on the other hand High School is pretty close to the point where students might never get the benefits of Shakespeare conveyed to them by a teacher who hopefully is adequate to convey those benefits (I have to admit I am not especially optimistic about these teachers existing, based on the Utah high schools I attended, but such is the American educational system)