Printable View
I heard on NPR that the British education system is dumbing down Shakespeare so that fewer teens will be driven away by the language. I was curious, is this factual? Are there any links that may reveal something on this topic, and what are the revisions on Shakespeare?
It seems to be true, sadly enough. They don't seem to realise that kids are put off by Shakespeare because it's educational, not because they're thick. I'm not sure if this is something that happened on an odd occasion that got blown out of proportion by the media or if it's a nation wide occurance, either way..
:wall:
I hate this country at times. :laugh4:
Don't stereotype! I'm not from the UK, but I do follow the UK educational system. Fine, I don't like Shakespeare, because it just doesn't seem to be incredibly interesting and is so tedious having to look up all those funny middle english (it is middle english right?) words. By any means, don't think I'm one of those who hate anything educational. If you believe that, just take a look at my monastery posts. It's just that most other subjects trump Shakespeare in appeal to the wider audience, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
:sigh:
Shakespeare wrote popular plays meant to entertain people. He didn't want to make 'high art', so if you want kids to enjoy Shakespeare I'd say it's perfectly valid to update the language. later they might learn in the 'proper' middle English. But it's pure elitism to claim this is the way it's supposed to be. They're plays ! They are meant to be played, in fornt of people who understand what it is about. This isn't avant garde **** where you're not supposed to understand anything.
This isn't dumbing down Shakespeare per se, it's knocking it back down from its pedastal and giving the stories back to the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Very true. Plays are plays, they are meant to be perform, that's why its so tedious just to read it. Furthermore, Shakespeare did not just wrote in a language that the commoners could not understand, he wrote in English! At that time, the noble class and the royals still used French and Latin but Shakespeare used English so that the commoners could appreciate the plays as well.
If you're going to do Shakespeare, do it properly.
Anyway, I rather enjoyed Macbeth.
Same here. Macbeth is my favourite play.
"Out, out, brief candle, life's but a walking shadow..."
I totally agree, but the entire thing depends on whether whoever does the arranging and adapting of the Shakespeare plays does it well :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Gah! See you, my princes, and my noble peers,
these English monsters!
A terrible idea. One of the most important aspects of reading Shakespeare is the effort required to understand it. As you study the language you dig deeper and deeper into the meaning. The wisdom of the words is not only revealed in more depth, but achieves a greater level of impact upon the reader.
If the art department decides to bastardize (can I say that here?) an individual play, that's one thing. They have creative license. But for the educational system itself to take the heart and soul out of Shakespeare by making it convenient to the bored mind is to murder it. Might as well teach Mozart on a pair of $10 bongos and keep all symphonies to under one minute. Otherwise the kids might get restless, eh?
It is the discipline required to appreciate the higher art forms that sets them apart. If you want Ren & Stimpy, fine, sit on the couch and eat and drink and fart to your heart's content. But if you want to see a Michelangelo. you have to go the museum, stand up, be quiet and let your brain have a go at it. The same with Shakespeare. It is a literary style that requires discipline and can only be truly appreciated through effort.
That's part of the problem; shakespeare never wrote high art, he made entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I don't say we abandon the old writing completely, because it will always have more depth than a modern 'translation'. But wouldn't it be nice if people could be introduced to Shakespeare in a more accessible way ? Wouldn't they appreciate it more or at least more easily ? And wouldn't those that were truly interested learn the middle English required to read it in its original form ?
And those that don't, well, you can force people into a museum, but you can't force them to appreciate it.
While I think that a simplified synopsis of the plays could be helpful to schoolchildren in studying them, I would say that it would have to be used alongside the regular text. The most satisfying thing for me about Shakespeare is the wonderful use of language, and you wouldn't be able to get that from a modern 'translation'.
Edit-I looked for an article about this, but the only one I could find came from The Daily Mail, which has a tendency to be somewhat...melodramatic about things like this.
Clicky
Their problem seems to be with revision guides, which are quite obviously, despite the Mail's attempt to misrepresent it, supposed to be used in conjunction with a regular text. In any case, it's a commercial publication-schools don't have to buy them, and they're not set texts.
What a non-issue.
Yeah, Shakespeare's use of language was brillant. He used the langauge as entertainment for the commoners but at the same time, as "high art" for the royals and nobles who watched the plays too. In short, he killed two audience with one language through the use of invention of new words, complex plots and metaphors and description.
Agreed, but his entetainment became art, as did many of the works of the old masters, regardless of their art form.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Agreed. That's how I learned about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
The art class, as I mentioned, has artistic license to modernize his plays. Several movies, some of them good, have done the same thing. I prefer these avenues be used to facilitate people's introduction to Shakespeare, and that the educational system remain true to the purity of what he wrote. The problem with the educational system itself "officially" changing the words is that it becomes very hard to change them back.
The kids know that Hollywood Shakespeare isn't right. But if the teachers start pimping low IQ Shakespeare out of convenience and/or an inability to teach the real thing, then the art (entertainment) suffers as well as those exposed to it. Teach a whole generation to say "Maybe I is and maybe I isn't" and they will begin to believe it. A lie repeated often enough can become the truth. This literary tampering is like putting a fig leaf over the exposed areas of a Michelangelo. Convenient to the moment and always a bad idea.
Agreed. And we should still force them. Education is often forced. So is teeth brushing to a three year-old, but it's still beneficial. The end justifies the means. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Personally I think that it would be more beneficial to students to see the play they are studying being performed than it would for them to study a 'modern version'. I always found Shakespeare to be much more understandable when performed than when read. After all, they are plays, not books.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
So we all agree then: Shakespeare good, more people properly introduced to Shakespeare good, updated versions okay, original versions very good.
:2thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Agreed.
Sure if I could I would slap Shakespeare for all the tedious hours of homework he has placed upon me. But, the guy was a genius. I mean who can write over 250 sonnets! The whole beauty of Shakespeare is the language and his ability to use the language in such a poetic and beautiful fashion.
I second that. That's guy a genius, many of our proverbs comes from him and he made English one of the 'best' and beautiful language in the world. Before him, it was considerd an coarse language spoken by the common people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
I looked on the daily mail link, who the translations were funny!
Quote:
Act Two, Scene One - Macbeth sees a blood-covered dagger
Shakespeare:
Macbeth: Is this a dagger, which I see before me, The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee:- I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
CGP:
Macbeth: Oooh! Would you look at that.
My god, it's so funny.Quote:
Act Five, Scene Eight - climatic fight between Macduff and Macbeth
Shakespeare:
Macduff: Turn, Hell-hound, turn!
Macbeth: Of all men else I have avoided thee: But get thee back, my soul is too charg'd With blood of thine already.
CGP:
Macduff: Prepare to die squid-for-brains
Macbeth: No man born from a woman can kill me
Macduff: Well I wasn't born as such, I was cut out of my mum's belly
Macbeth: Oh flip!
On a serious note, the revision really takes away from the actual meaning. Shakespeare's plays are very flowing, language wise, and rhyme quite often. These now seem to be, look at that, I'll kill you, blah blah, like a regular film script, not like the flowering prose of Shakespeare.
There be the truth spoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Takes me back to my schooldays - I never did Shakespeare as a subject (English Language was compulsory to age 16, but English Lit was an option you could choose from 14) but we did A Midsummer Night's Dream as the school play one year. We did use the technique of translating into modern English in some rehearsals to help us concentrate on the emotion and comedy, but the performance was all the straight original text. The review in the local paper carried a quote they overheard from one of the audience "I always thought Shakespear was meant to be boring, but the way they did it, it wasn't."
Read the poetry sitting at a desk, but treat the plays as plays!
Yes, MacBeth would be exceptionally funny.
Upon seeing Banquo's ghost:
MacBeth: I thought I killed you. Why won't you die?
The royal party enters MacBeth's castle as guests:
Duncan: Fair and noble hostess, we are you guests tonight.
Lady Macbeth: Your servants, ever.
Translation-
Duncan: You better have drinks, and half-good looking women, or I am going to crack some skulls!
Lady MacBeth: Don't get violent, you drunk dimwitt!
In my class, we actually performed A Midsummer Night's Dream and MacBeth in English and Armenian. I was Nick Bottom in the former, and Malcolm and a murderer in the former. I think I did trashy, but people tell me I did well. We modernized the first one by setting it in the late 50's. MacBeth, though, was no holds barred, incredibly vicious, or how it was meant to be preformed.
Thats a myth, everyone spoke English by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelostboy
I'm sorry but Shakespeare was not the great genius he is portrayed as, if he even existed. He was prolific, he wrote lots of plays and the quality varries greatly.
That said transaltion shouldn't be in quotation marks and for educational purposes it shouldn't be done because you will lose much of the meaning in the language, at which point you just have the plot. Lets be honest here the plots aren't always great.
Another thing I dislike about him is the way he treats history, Macbeth was one of Scotland's greatest kings, infact you have to turn the plot on its head to work out what actually happened.
The plots are always great.They involve betrayal, a masterful use of dramatic irony, and enough gore to satifsy a 7-year-old who plays gore enhanced wargames.
I always think that Shakespeare identifies alot of basic human feelings, and then expands them to titanic proportions.
I enjoy many of his plays, specifically Titus Andronicus, a masterful play full of gore, horror, and insanity.
Very true, I prefer Othello though. Simple, but beautiful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Am I the only one who thinks Shakespeare is terrible? I agree with doc-bean, it's about the stories not about the language. As long as it doesn't become Harry Potter and the magic rock no problem.
Yes it seems you are, I just love poetry though :embarassed:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
English is killed in schools. Shakespeare should be performed, not read out loud and every line analysed. I'm willing to bet that he genuinely didn't mean anything by a lot of it.
Asimov hated being analysed so much he wrote a story where a time-travelling Shakespeare fails a course on his owns books.
Lear, baby. Best play ever written.
And I'm with Robert Graves on the whole subject of Big Bill Shakespeare:
The remarkable thing about Shakespeare is that he really is very good, in spite of all the people who say he's very good.
Lear gets my vote too. It's really rather embarrassing that, even though it's been 400 or so years, it still hasn't been topped.
:wall: No No No
:sweatdrop: Who will save my country from these left wing ideas :no:
What is the point, learning shakespeare is all about understanding the double meaning in the verse. Part of the learning is understanding. :furious3: