Does classic language lose its value if it's modernized?

[spookymulder93]

I'm sitting here trying to read Hamlet, andI remember my high school experience with Shakespeare was dreadful and I figured now that I'm older that maybe I could give him a second chance because a discussion I had with a fellow member made me interested in his work.

I started reading and it made me remember why I never liked it in high school for example-

"Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,
Th' imperial jointress to this warlike state,
Have we—as ’twere with a defeated joy,
With an auspicious and a dropping eye,
With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
In equal scale weighing delight and dole—
Taken to wife. "

I read that passage over and over again and I thought to myself: just what in the hell is this dude saying? I remembered that Sparknotes was supposed to help a lot with reading Shakespeare and on their site they have a side by side modern translation of it-

"Therefore, I’ve married my former sister-in-law, the queen, with mixed feelings of happiness and sadness. I know that in marrying Gertrude I’m only doing what all of you have wisely advised all along—for which I thank you. "

Now that makes sense. It makes me want to keep reading.

I realize that this isn't the case for everyone and that if I don't understand it that it's on me, but what I am wondering is can the play be read in modern language and still maintain its essence so to say. I've heard a few people say that the beauty of Shakespeare lies in the language, but doesn't a language evolve for a good reason? I mean shouldn't the language of today be better than the language of the 17th century?

I'm not looking for a fight or to antagonize anyone I just want some clarity.

[OrphanPip]

For one, that modernization isn't very good, or accurate even.

If you're going to modernize the language at least try to keep the meaning intact.

"Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,
Th' imperial jointress to this warlike state,
Have we—as ’twere with a defeated joy,
With an auspicious and a dropping eye,
With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
In equal scale weighing delight and dole—
Taken to wife."

"Therefore, my former sister-in-law, now our queen,
the bond that keeps our state together,
We have married you, despite doing it with defeated joy,
with a sad look on my face,
with a gleeful funeral and a somber marriage,
giving equal weight to joy and pain."

That we being a "royal we." I feel almost guilty butchering that passage. Ignoring the meter, because well it's not worth that much effort.

Essentially, the king is just giving the audience the background in this passage, he married his brother's wife after his brother died, and he's a king.

The following lines then say that the people and courtiers have supported the marriage.

Edit: If we were going to read Shakespeare simply for the plot, we'd be wasting our time.

[spookymulder93]

For one, that modernization isn't very good, or accurate even.

If you're going to modernize the language at least try to keep the meaning intact.

"Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,
Th' imperial jointress to this warlike state,
Have we—as ’twere with a defeated joy,
With an auspicious and a dropping eye,
With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
In equal scale weighing delight and dole—
Taken to wife."

"Therefore, my former sister-in-law, now our queen,
the bond that keeps our state together,
We have married you, despite doing it with defeated joy,
with a sad look on my face,
with a gleeful funeral and a somber marriage,
giving equal weight to joy and pain."

That we being a "royal we." I feel almost guilty butchering that passage.

Essentially, the king is just giving the audience the background in this passage, he married his brother's wife after his brother died, and he's a king.

The following lines then say that the people and courtiers have supported the marriage.

Edit: If we were going to read Shakespeare simply for the plot, we'd be wasting our time.
If that's the truth then I'm done with Shakespeare.

[OrphanPip]

If that's the truth then I'm done with Shakespeare.

All I can say is if you're reading only for plot, whether it be Shakespeare or any other author, you're missing out on a great deal.

[spookymulder93]

All I can say is if you're reading only for plot, whether it be Shakespeare or any other author, you're missing out on a great deal.

Like what? I'm kind of new to reading "serious" literature so I'm not as experienced as you. I usually like to read novels that have a good story that makes you think. I understand that the language plays a huge role in a novel, but it's not the most important thing TO ME. One of my favorite books is Notes from the Underground and it's definitely not because of the language that's used.

I still want to know if something is lost is you modernize the language. I mean can that passage not be said in modern language and still maintain its original meaning?

[OrphanPip]

Like what? I'm kind of new to reading "serious" literature so I'm not as experienced as you. I usually like to read novels that have a good story that makes you think. I understand that the language plays a huge role in a novel, but it's not the most important thing TO ME. One of my favorite books is Notes from the Underground and it's definitely not because of the language that's used.

I still want to know if something is lost is you modernize the language. I mean can that passage not be said in modern language and still maintain its original meaning?

I was thinking mostly of the wide world of poetry that is out there.

Everything in that opening soliloquy by the King in Act 1 Sc. 2 is carefully chosen. The use of verse allows the characters to express themselves in terms of metaphor and simile, bringing a level of complexity of meaning that is not often created in prose. The problem with modernizing Shakespeare's language is that you lose much of the beauty of the lines, they become clumsy and painful to read in plain prosaic language.

Besides the language of course, there's a great deal to speak of thematically and philosophically within Hamlet, you can also consider how it relates the earlier traditions of tragedy in drama.

[spookymulder93]

I was thinking mostly of the wide world of poetry that is out there.

Everything in that opening soliloquy by the King in Act 1 Sc. 2 is carefully chosen. The use of verse allows the characters to express themselves in terms of metaphor and simile, bringing a level of complexity of meaning that is not often created in prose. The problem with modernizing Shakespeare's language is that you lose much of the beauty of the lines, they become clumsy and painful to read in plain prosaic language.

Besides the language of course, there's a great deal to speak of thematically and philosophically within Hamlet, you can also consider how it relates the earlier traditions of tragedy in drama.

That makes sense. I'm going to keep on trying with Shakespeare. The footnotes in the book I have are somewhat helpful.

I'm still curious about modernizing classic language. Is it clumsy and painful for all classic language or just poetry? Would something written in prose lose its essence.

[stlukesguild]

I am not always of the same opinion as Ezra Pound, but I most certainly agree with him when he declared, "Anyone who is too lazy to master the comparatively small glossary necessary to understand Chaucer deserves to be shut out from the reading of good books forever." I imagine that Pound would never have thought that anyone with the least grasp of the English language and an interest in reading would actually even think of wanting to "modernize" Shakespeare.

It would seem that this is but one more post in the on-going discussion of literature that is too difficult or complex... too poetic in language... so that it needs to be dumbed-down to the level of a primary school reader.

Shakespeare's language is one of his crowning glories. Stripping him of this is akin to stripping Wagner of his lush orchestration or Monet and Matisse of their color. What is the point of such an effort? Clarity of meaning? Clarity to whom? Those too lazy or unwilling to invest the least effort in their reading? Increased speed of the narrative drama? Does anyone with the least grasp or appreciation of Shakespeare really think that Shakespeare would be better if it were closer to an action movie? The plot is not the sole central value of literature outside of 8th-grade literature class.

Certainly, I can see the merit of modern "translations" to assist the middle-school student... and perhaps even the older reader who lacks much experience in reading. But ultimately, one wishes to read what Shakespeare actually wrote. The purpose of reading, it would seem, is to gain a degree of pleasure... not merely to "get to the point". If getting to the point is all one requires, then certainly Sparksnotes, Cliff Notes, the Wikipedia entries, or the Hollywood filmed versions will hone down the narrative to the most basic level. But it would seem to me that those who truly love reading take pleasure in far more than getting to the point. They embrace the use of language... a well-turned phrase... an exquisite choice of words... they are enamored of poetic form and language... of metaphor, symbol, analogy... the atmosphere created by the choice of words... the tension and drama created through the pacing and unfolding of the narrative... the development of the characters... that which is hinted at or alluded to or merely suggested... as well as that which is spelled out with crystal clarity so all may understand.

but doesn't a language evolve for a good reason? I mean shouldn't the language of today be better than the language of the 17th century?

Language evolves simply as a result of history: the influx of new influences from foreign cultures, new inventions, new words or ways of employing words. As with all art there is an evolution or development... but this is not something akin to science or medicine... it does not involve a continual improvement... just change. The English language today like painting today is no better than the English language or painting in the 1600s. Art is not like science where one may state with a degree of certainly that medicine today is far better than it was 50 years ago... let alone 400 years ago. Unquestionably, the language of Shakespeare was far more suited to dealing with the experiences and communicating to the audiences of his time than is our language. It would seem to me that one of the essential values of literature is not to reiterate or reinforce our own perceptions, experiences, beliefs, values, and even prejudices... but rather is owed to our ability through reading to enter into the thoughts of those of other cultures, other experiences, other values and beliefs. As such, the desire to "modernize" Shakespeare strikes me as not merely lazy, but self-centered... based on the belief that the reader should not need to make the least effort to come to and understand the writer... it is fully the writer's job to come to the reader and merely entertain him for a while.

[OrphanPip]

That makes sense. I'm going to keep on trying with Shakespeare. The footnotes in the book I have are somewhat helpful.

I'm still curious about modernizing classic language. Is it clumsy and painful for all classic language or just poetry? Would something written in prose lose its essence.

I don't think it's really an issue, by the time prose becomes a major form, I think it's easily readable by a contemporary reader. Maybe an occasional word might be obscure and require a footnote, and certainly Daniel Defoe is a lot wordier than contemporary authors, but I think it's not that challenging to read. Take for example the prose of Jonathan Swift, it is relatively easy to read by contemporary standards, despite having been written in 1729.

"For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing, till they arrive at six years old, except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier, during which time, they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers, as I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan, who protested to me that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old is no salable commodity; and even when they come to this age they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half-a-crown at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout."

[brave new tony]

I have this feeling that prose is to writing as abstract is to art. In other word's I feel like we value such writing because it is difficult , it set's us apart, and yet at the same time it is inefficient and too often unbearable. As I mentioned earlier, those who scoff at simple writing with great depth make me want to ask them," Do you have any grey poupon?"

[OrphanPip]

I have this feeling that prose is to writing as abstract is to art. In other word's I feel like we value such writing because it is difficult , it set's us apart, and yet at the same time it is inefficient and too often unbearable. As I mentioned earlier, those who scoff at simple writing with great depth make me want to ask them," Do you have any grey poupon?"

Who exactly scoffed at simple writing, maybe you should consider the possibility that there is something to be gained, something enjoyable, about that complexity. Also, Shakespeare is not difficult to read, and prose need not be simple either.

All I'm seeing in this post is unjustified anti-elitism, surely anyone who reads poetry must be a self-absorbed elitist snob who thinks prose is beneath them.:rolleyes:

[spookymulder93]

I am not always of the same opinion as Ezra Pound, but I most certainly agree with him when he declared, "Anyone who is too lazy to master the comparatively small glossary necessary to understand Chaucer deserves to be shut out from the reading of good books forever." I imagine that Pound would never have thought that anyone with the least grasp of the English language and an interest in reading would actually even think of wanting to "modernize" Shakespeare.

It would seem that this is but one more post in the on-going discussion of literature that is too difficult or complex... too poetic in language... so that it needs to be dumbed-down to the level of a primary school reader.

Shakespeare's language is one of his crowning glories. Stripping him of this is akin to stripping Wagner of his lush orchestration or Monet and Matisse of their color. What is the point of such an effort? Clarity of meaning? Clarity to whom? Those too lazy or unwilling to invest the least effort in their reading? Increased speed of the narrative drama? Does anyone with the least grasp or appreciation of Shakespeare really think that Shakespeare would be better if it were closer to an action movie? The plot is not the sole central value of literature outside of 8th-grade literature class.

Certainly, I can see the merit of modern "translations" to assist the middle-school student... and perhaps even the older reader who lacks much experience in reading. But ultimately, one wishes to read what Shakespeare actually wrote. The purpose of reading, it would seem, is to gain a degree of pleasure... not merely to "get to the point". If getting to the point is all one requires, then certainly Sparksnotes, Cliff Notes, the Wikipedia entries, or the Hollywood filmed versions will hone down the narrative to the most basic level. But it would seem to me that those who truly love reading take pleasure in far more than getting to the point. They embrace the use of language... a well-turned phrase... an exquisite choice of words... they are enamored of poetic form and language... of metaphor, symbol, analogy... the atmosphere created by the choice of words... the tension and drama created through the pacing and unfolding of the narrative... the development of the characters... that which is hinted at or alluded to or merely suggested... as well as that which is spelled out with crystal clarity so all may understand.

but doesn't a language evolve for a good reason? I mean shouldn't the language of today be better than the language of the 17th century?

Language evolves simply as a result of history: the influx of new influences from foreign cultures, new inventions, new words or ways of employing words. As with all art there is an evolution or development... but this is not something akin to science or medicine... it does not involve a continual improvement... just change. The English language today like painting today is no better than the English language or painting in the 1600s. Art is not like science where one may state with a degree of certainly that medicine today is far better than it was 50 years ago... let alone 400 years ago. Unquestionably, the language of Shakespeare was far more suited to dealing with the experiences and communicating to the audiences of his time than is our language. It would seem to me that one of the essential values of literature is not to reiterate or reinforce our own perceptions, experiences, beliefs, values, and even prejudices... but rather is owed to our ability through reading to enter into the thoughts of those of other cultures, other experiences, other values and beliefs. As such, the desire to "modernize" Shakespeare strikes me as not merely lazy, but self-centered... based on the belief that the reader should not need to make the least effort to come to and understand the writer... it is fully the writer's job to come to the reader and merely entertain him for a while.
All that and you didn't even answer the question. LOL. Does classic language lose its value if it's modernized? Why or why not.

[stlukesguild]

Now I know why you need "complex" language simplified.:rolleyes:

[David Lurie]

Dear spookymulder93,
I suggest you spend one night away from books and literature and go to a concert where an orchestra is playing Beethoven's 9th symphony, when you go home after the concert please buy the ring tone version of the symphony then come here and tell me: does Beethoven's music lose value when you modernize it?

[kasie]

The language of Shakespeare is Modern English - take a look at Old English, Beowulf, for example, and Middle English, The Canterbury Tales is probably the easiest example to come by, and you'll see that the grammatical structure and even the vocabulary of Shakespeare's English is essentially Modern, it hasn't really changed much up to the present day. Some words have fallen out of use or changed their meaning but structurally, the language is the same. Shakespeare is writing largely in verse which requires heightened language, metre, simile, metaphore, as previous posters have pointed out; it's the language of the stage - I doubt that people on the street spoke in iambic pentameters.

If you are really serious about reading Shakespeare but are having difficulties, may I suggest an indirect approach? Stay with Hamlet, if that's what you want to read, though it's jumping in at the deep end, not exactly Shakespeare's easiest play to start with. First, go to Wikipedia, Sparknotes, the Oxford Companion, wherever it is you go for background information - that will give you the plot of the play. If all you want is to 'know about' Shakespeare, you can stop there, you've got the basic story-line. But if you want to know more, do what his contempories did, see a performance: a live theatre performance would be ideal but failing that, a DVD will do, preferably one of a theatre performance rather than a Hollywood rendition. (The difference between a filmed play and the film of a play is the subject of a whole new thread.) I can recommend the latest RSC production with David Tennant in the title role and Patrick Stewart as Claudius - it may surprise you, not perhaps what you would expect of Shakespeare, it's in modern dress with minimal scenery but it helps you concentrate on the words. Make yourself comfortable and watch it without interruption - I'll be very surprised if the rhythm and pace of the drama does not absorb you. No, you won't understand every word but you will be carried along by the dramatic impulse of the experience. Watch it again, if you can, bits will start to become familiar. Then go back to the text and treat it the same way - let the dramatic rhythm carry you through a scene. You'll be aware of the scenes that are key to the dramatic development of the story and can give them more attention if you wish. Read it aloud if you can, it wasn't meant for silent reading, it was meant to be spoken. Then, if you are still interested, make an analytical reading, word by word; read the critics and the professors; you could spend a lifetime on Hamlet alone, if you wanted to get to grips with it in all its ramifications. Or you could get hold of more DVDs, compare actors, productions. Better still, you could see new productions throughout your life. A play by Shakespeare is not a one-off reading experience, a title to be ticked off a list, it's something to take with you through your whole life.

To answer your original question: in my opinion, for what it's worth, works written in what may be termed 'Classical' language are diminished when rendered into flat, everyday prose, not because it has been 'modernised' by the substitution of modern usage words for archaic or little-used words, but because the elements that make it 'poetic' or 'Classical' have been removed.

[Seasider]

I know this is an obvious point but Shakespeare is not a novelist. He is a playwright and his works should be seen and heard rather than read.
I have the complete set of DVDs produced of the plays performed by The Royal Shakespeare Company in the seventies.
I also have a gardener who knowing that I was before I retired a teacher of Eng Lit told me that although he had bought a copy of the complete plays he had tried unsuccessfully to read one. I told him the outline of Macbeth and gave him the DVD with Nichol Williamson in the title role. A week later he said he had watched it twice and loved it. I struck while the iron was hot and gave him a copy of A Midsummer Night's Dream. This was so successful that he and his wife went to an outdoor evening performance of the Dream and came back
captivated. This was the first time either of them had seen a Shakespeare play. And they say it will not be the last.

And so to Claudius' quote:-

"now our queen,
Th' imperial jointress to this warlike state,
Have we—as ’twere with a defeated joy,
With an auspicious and a dropping eye,
With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
In equal scale weighing delight and dole—
Taken to wife."

This is an attempt to put the best possible spin on his actions. According to him it was for the best and most disinterested of reasons. It was for the sake of the Queen, joint ruler of the Kingdom and for the sake of national stability. Shakespeare is already alerting us to his true character. When we know what the Ghost says to Hamlet, we think back to this and realise that Claudius is a liar and a murderer.This talk of dole in delight fairly drips with irony. There was no defeat in his joy and no dole in his delight.
The words and the the interpretation of them by the actor and Hamlet's response to them will be more appreciated by seeing this played out.

Reading Shakespeare, after you have seen the play might help you to pick up things you missed in the performance but in my opinion it should not be your introduction to Shakespeare.

[mal4mac]

I started reading and it made me remember why I never liked it in high school for example-

"Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,
Th' imperial jointress to this warlike state,
Have we—as ’twere with a defeated joy,
With an auspicious and a dropping eye,
With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
In equal scale weighing delight and dole—
Taken to wife. "

I read that passage over and over again and I thought to myself: just what in the hell is this dude saying?


I read it once, slowly, and got what he is saying. It helps that I've read Hamlet three times and most of his other plays at least once :) Shakespeare requires *practice*. Just keep reading the original along with some good notes and eventually you'll tune into the language.



I remembered that Sparknotes was supposed to help a lot with reading Shakespeare and on their site they have a side by side modern translation of it-

"Therefore, I’ve married my former sister-in-law, the queen, with mixed feelings of happiness and sadness. I know that in marrying Gertrude I’m only doing what all of you have wisely advised all along—for which I thank you. "

Now that makes sense. It makes me want to keep reading.


As long as you mean "keep reading Hamlet" and not just "keep reading Spark Notes" that's great! Whatever works. Try re-reading both, maybe several times. Can you see that Shakespeare is much more beautiful, contains the meaning in the Sparks Notes translation, and has more subtle meanings that Spark notes does not reach. Note for instance how the language creates an image of Claudius as violent, warlike, not loving ("jointress"?) and - your very struggles show this - compact in speech, complex and intelligent.



...can the play be read in modern language and still maintain its essence so to say. I've heard a few people say that the beauty of Shakespeare lies in the language.


I read the Shakespeare and got the same meaning as exhibited in the Sparks notes (if that's what you mean by "essence".) I didn't even have to look at my annotated RSC Shakespeare to get help :) You *can* read modern "translations" - there are some out there - but I wouldn't recommend it, unless you use them to understand the original. An important part of the beauty of Shakespeare lies in the language. Now you have "got" the main(?) meaning of the passage you quote, read it slowly, and then read "Sparks" again. Can't you see that the the original is far more beautiful? It's like comparing the taste of the cheapest salmon paste to the best smoked salmon. If you can't see this, maybe you just lack the taste buds, or maybe you need to acquire the taste. All the experts agree, and non-experts like me, if lucky, get to see, that Shakespeare is incomparable.



... but doesn't a language evolve for a good reason? I mean shouldn't the language of today be better than the language of the 17th century?


Why should "should" come into it? Why "should" everything progress? I find it fascinating that some disciplines go downhill. In any survey of the "great and good" of literature, Shakespeare always comes out top. English literature was better in Shakespeare's time, if only because of Shakespeare.


[Shakespeare not worth reading if only for plot...]If that's the truth then I'm done with Shakespeare.

It's not the truth! The plots are great. Everything is great! Also, from translations you can get a lot more than plot - characterisation, "truth to nature", metaphors, history, etc,...

You miss out on the incomparable beauty of the language of course, and you would miss out on the full 'incontestable aesthetic worth' that inspired to Dostoevsky, with little English, to memorise passages in English!

"... Shakespeare is a main inspiration for Dostoevsky's own tragic art. Encouraged to read Shakespeare by his student friend Shidlovskii, Dostoevsky knew no English, although he later memorized by heart passages of N. A. Polevoi's 1837 translation of Hamlet, and also used Letourneur's 1821 French version of the works. In 1849, when Dostoevsky was under sentence of death, his elder brother Mikhail sent him Ketcher's prose translations (‘I thank you particularly for Shakespeare’). Dostoevsky affirmed Shakespeare's ‘uncontestable aesthetic worth’, admiring his truth to nature and the freedom and inconsistency of his gigantic characters; but he saw him also as a poet of despair, needing the antidote of... "

http://www.enotes.com/ocs-encyclopedia/dostoevsky-fyodor


I know this is an obvious point but Shakespeare[B] is not a novelist. He is a playwright and his works should be seen and heard rather than read.

Rubbish. Can you quote a major critic making this point? Some (e.g., Harold Bloom) say re-reading them (today) is almost certainly going to result in a far better experience than going to see a production. That's been my experience - finding a good production is difficult. But anyway, do both. Beginners (like the OP) will need to read the play, they will not fully understand even the best performed play.

[Seasider]

I do not think Shakespeare's original audiences would agree with you. Many of the groundlings, and not just them, would not have been able to read. Shakespeare's plays were not published until after his death. His reputation was founded on his being a dramatist. And I do not think that Bloom is Holy Writ either. Your remarks about "beginners" is patronising in the extreme. Perhaps you will appreciate the subtleties of the plays better when you read the text. But if you had met as many schoolchildren as I have who were eager to study the play after they had seen it, you might revise your opinion.

[kelby_lake]

I'm sitting here trying to read Hamlet, andI remember my high school experience with Shakespeare was dreadful and I figured now that I'm older that maybe I could give him a second chance because a discussion I had with a fellow member made me interested in his work.

I started reading and it made me remember why I never liked it in high school for example-

"Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,
Th' imperial jointress to this warlike state,
Have we—as ’twere with a defeated joy,
With an auspicious and a dropping eye,
With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
In equal scale weighing delight and dole—
Taken to wife. "

I read that passage over and over again and I thought to myself: just what in the hell is this dude saying? I remembered that Sparknotes was supposed to help a lot with reading Shakespeare and on their site they have a side by side modern translation of it-

"Therefore, I’ve married my former sister-in-law, the queen, with mixed feelings of happiness and sadness. I know that in marrying Gertrude I’m only doing what all of you have wisely advised all along—for which I thank you. "

Now that makes sense. It makes me want to keep reading.

I realize that this isn't the case for everyone and that if I don't understand it that it's on me, but what I am wondering is can the play be read in modern language and still maintain its essence so to say. I've heard a few people say that the beauty of Shakespeare lies in the language, but doesn't a language evolve for a good reason? I mean shouldn't the language of today be better than the language of the 17th century?

I'm not looking for a fight or to antagonize anyone I just want some clarity.

That's like an Englishman going to France and saying 'Shouldn't English be better than French?' Shakespeare's a bit like French. You can recognise some words but others confuse you- and the grammar's a little different.

France is a really nice place (or at least parts of it). It's worth learning some French so you can visit there. You don't have to be fluent but as long as you get the sense of it, you can communicate effectively and enjoy yourself.




"Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,
She was once my sister-in law, now my queen

Th' imperial jointress to this warlike state,
She rules by me at a time of war

Have we—as ’twere with a defeated joy,
With an auspicious and a dropping eye,
I was happy to marry her, although the circumstances were sad

With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
I was happy at the funeral and sad at my wedding

In equal scale weighing delight and dole—
Taken to wife. "
I mourn my brother's death but celebrate my marriage


Not as exciting, really, but not hard to get the general meaning of. Claudius is contrasting happy with sad (he is happy at the funeral because he will marry Gertrude but sad at the wedding because his brother is dead) to get the sympathy of the audience. The images of someone being happy at a funeral and then mournful at a wedding are strong images and getting rid of those by dumbing it down spoils the atmosphere. Trust me, eventually you'll get it.

Try translating the following passage using these principles:

- Read the passage all the way through, twice.
- Underline words you don't understand and look them up in the glossary
- Look at the situation of the dialogue and work out the meaning from that
- Guess the meaning of words by studying them

This is from the play Julius Caesar. Cassius is talking about Caesar, the leader of Rome, to his friend Brutus:

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Brutus and Caesar: what should be in that 'Caesar'?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
Write them together, yours is as fair a name;
Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well;
Weigh them, it is as heavy; conjure with 'em,
Brutus will start a spirit as soon as Caesar.
Now, in the names of all the gods at once,
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed,
That he is grown so great?

[Drkshadow03]

Like what? I'm kind of new to reading "serious" literature so I'm not as experienced as you. I usually like to read novels that have a good story that makes you think. I understand that the language plays a huge role in a novel, but it's not the most important thing TO ME. One of my favorite books is Notes from the Underground and it's definitely not because of the language that's used.

I still want to know if something is lost is you modernize the language. I mean can that passage not be said in modern language and still maintain its original meaning?

As others have pointed out already what makes Shakespeare brilliant is his ability with language and character. So reading it in the original is a must. However, those who are against any form of modernized translation doth protest too much.

Editions exist that have both the original language side-by-side with a modernized "translation." For example, there is the Shakespeare made easy series (http://www.amazon.com/Macbeth-Shakespeare-Made-Easy-William/dp/0812035712/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280763705&sr=8-3). There is nothing wrong with reading Shakespeare alongside a modernized version of the text, so long as your reading the original with it.

In my earliest college undergrad classes one of our assignments was to translate a John Donne or George Herbert poem into modern language. This a good technique, and I still do this a lot with older work and poetry (my Emily Dickinson and John Donne collections are filled with side-notes of me translating large sections into modern terms). If done correctly it helps you understand the poem and appreciate the language more, NOT less. Part of it, of course, is that you're doing the translation into modern terms line-by-line yourself so you're in fact grappling with the language. However, seeing it side-by-side also allows you to contrast the modernized "translation" with different lines of the original so you can appreciate the beauty of the language and the metaphors the writer employs beyond the literal meaning.

As far as reading for plot, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Plot is one of those elements of a novel, play, short story, and certain poems that as early as high school English teachers denigrate. You're supposed to focus on theme, character, technique, and language. And it's a shame since plot is an equally important element of literature in which all these other elements stem from, and plot stems from them in a dialectic relationship. A theme should always be inherently attached to the conflict that drives the plot. Style should reflect substance. Substance should reflect style. How you tell a story will be related to what the story is about. The plot moves from the character's decisions, and the character's decisions should reflect the issues (themes) they are dealing with. When English teachers delegitimize plot they do a disservice to younger students of literature because I think a lot of students then get confused about where all the themes and symbols come from; literature transforms into this esoteric Crossword puzzle full of hidden mysteries that only their teachers can decipher. In reality, most major themes in a novel are fairly obvious from the plot of the novel; they're directly related to the plot of the novel. In other words, all of these elements are intimately related.

Too often people on this site forget part of what makes literature interesting is plot and story. If a person just wants meaningfulness they could always just go read philosophy. If a person just wants aesthetic beauty in language they could just stick to plotless poems about emotions or sensations or the beauty of nature. Story-telling itself is special and a fundamental part of literature, especially when we speak of novels, short stories, and drama.

[Seasider]

As others have pointed out already what makes Shakespeare brilliant is his ability with language and character. So reading it in the original is a must. However, those who are against any form of modernized translation doth protest too much.



Too often people on this site forget part of what makes literature interesting is plot and story. If a person just wants meaningfulness they could always just go read philosophy. If a person just wants aesthetic beauty in language they could just stick to plotless poems about emotions or sensations or the beauty of nature. Story-telling itself is special and a fundamental part of literature, especially when we speak of novels, short stories, and drama.

I agree and would also say that if reading Spark Notes' rendering of Shakespeare's texts helps a student to an understanding and appreciation of Shakespeare's language then by all means use them as aids.

Something else that should be borne in mind is that the development of Universal Literacy is a much more recent phenomenon than the development of the Literature of any culture.We may take reading Shakespeare for granted now, but as far as England is concerned State education for the poor was not provided until after 1870 and literacy was not universal for some years after that. The reason that literacy was promoted before this was to ensure that Protestants could read the Bible. For their immortal souls rather than their aesthetic pleasure.

[spookymulder93]

Thanks for all your suggestions and help.

Since you guys seem to firmly believe that there is something to be gained by reading it in the original I just stuck with it. I'm now in Act 2. I mean it's not exactly HARD to read, it's just something different than what I'm used to.

If I'm unsure if I'm understanding what's being said then I go to spark notes to make sure. I can understand why you guys say that the language matters because some of it sounds good, but I still find myself mainly interested in the story.

I actually first learned of Hamlets story on a episode of The Simpsons so I somewhat know what's going to happen.

[Basil]

...but doesn't a language evolve for a good reason? I mean shouldn't the language of today be better than the language of the 17th century?

:p

Reminds of the line from Idiocracy: "But [by the year 2505,] the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts..."

[stlukesguild]

But [by the year 2505,] the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts..."

But what hybrids, local dialects, and outside influences led to the language that was spoken in Shakespeare's England?

[Petrarch's Love]

Spooky—It looks like you’ve already gotten some good advice and support from others about getting into Shakespeare. I agree that seeing the plays, whether on video or live, tends to help people to get into them. Reading aloud or listening to audio versions of play can be helpful too. I also agree that there’s nothing wrong with using any kind of summary or modernized version of the plays if that helps you to get into the originals, but that if you aren’t reading the original text you will be missing out on what has kept people reading Shakespeare for centuries. I teach Shakespeare at the college level, so I hear questions like the ones you are posting a lot. However, I also see nearly all of my students who start off frustrated with the text wondering what seemed so hard by the end of the term. It’s definitely possible for most people to read and (most importantly!) enjoy Shakespeare, but it does take some patience and effort. I’m glad to hear you’re still working away at Hamlet (an ambitious place to start, indeed). As supplement to what others have already said, I thought I would post out a few points that I’ve found are helpful or interesting for people just starting to get into Shakespeare and struggling with the language.

1) Shakespeare’s language is difficult for two reasons. The first is that it is old and uses archaic words and phrases. The second is that he is writing some very richly layered and complex poetry, which requires some time and thought before you’re going to get the full experience and reward that comes with reading these plays.

1-A)The problem of the language being old can be solved for the most part simply by practicing and reading the language for awhile. With some time and patience you will start to pick up all those “thees” and “thous” and be able to understand the basics of what’s going on without as much struggle. Watching a good production also helps with this, because you’ll hear the words spoken naturally by the actors and the language will start making sense to your ear. Even after you’re much better at reading the old language, though, there will still be some archaic words or phrases that you don’t know, which is why it is a good idea to have a well annotated edition to refer to.

1-B) The problem of the poetry being complex is not really a problem. That’s the exciting and interesting part that drew people to see Shakespeare’s plays originally and still makes people excited to watch and to read them. (More on this below.)

2) Shakespeare’s language really is modern English. If you doubt this, then try reading a little Old English: "Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon." or Middle English: "WHAN that Aprille with his shoures soote. The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote..." Shakespeare is, in fact, one of the founders of modern English, and contributed nearly 2000 words to the language that we still use today. One of the many benefits of reading Shakespeare is that it is taking you back to the early roots of modern English (which is why it is often referred to as “Early Modern” English) and reading the plays will give you a fuller understanding and command of our language.

3) In Shakespeare’s time people talked about going to “hear” a play rather than going to “see” one. The London public theatres that plays like Shakespeare’s were performed in did not have any sets or notable visual devices and so the performance was largely dependent upon the words said on stage. Language was the special effects of Elizabethan theater, and people were coming to hear language that would stir their imaginations and give them compelling portraits of places, characters and ideas. Some people would return multiple times to see a play that was well written enough. As a playwright, Shakespeare was motivated to create the richest, most nuanced possible language that would fully engage his audience in order to get people to come see the plays and possibly to get repeat customers who would come back because they would hear something new in the dialogue that they had missed before every time, just the way readers for centuries have continuously found something new each time they read his plays.

4) Along similar lines, the language of Shakespeare’s plays does not serve to describe or to ornament the characters, scenes and ideas in the play. The language is the characters scenes and ideas. He creates them with his language in the same way a musician creates feelings with certain notes or an artist conveys something with the style of his paintings. Without the words he wrote and the way he wrote them you can get the story, but you’re not going to get what is special about these plays in the same way that you’re not going to get what people see in Kubrik’s 2001: A Space Odyssey by watching a youtube video of the same storyline made by amateur college students with a monkey costume, a space suit, a big rock and some flashing lights, or that you’re not going to get what is special about Beethoven by hearing the theme from the 9th Symphony played on the harmonica.

5) When you do get a little better at reading the more archaic language, then you are going to be able to get to the reward for reading Shakespeare by thinking about the words he is using and how he is using them. Ask yourself if certain words stand out to you. Ask why he is using a particular word in a certain passage. What does it tell you about the characters or the situation in which it is used? Is it an unexpected or surprising thing to hear from a certain character? Does it make sense? Could a particular word have multiple meanings? Does the meaning of some words shift from line to line? Does it change the meaning of words that come before or after it? Shakespeare is constantly playing with language (the man was addicted to puns) and he expects an audience or reader who will play along and enjoy a bit of a challenge.

6) Not only does Shakespeare play with his language, but he does so with a purpose. When you do see something playful or puzzling or interesting or beautiful or hard to understand about the way he is using his language, the question to ask next is why he chose to write this way. What do the choice of words or the way they are used tell us about the person speaking them? Or what theme or idea in the play do they build on? Does the language remind you of other points in the play, or does it connect with other characters in some way? The nice thing about Shakespeare is that nearly all his plays are beautifully structured and interconnected, so for the most part, and certainly in a play like Hamlet, you can depend upon there being an underlying structure that connects everything together. It’s just a matter of digging to unearth that structure.

7) Don’t be gentle, timid or passive with Shakespeare. These plays are tough, and they are designed to poked and prodded, cut open and examined, questioned and challenged. It is the active engagement, sometimes even struggle that they provoke that stirs the thoughts and feelings of those who hear and read Shakespeare, and that keeps people coming back to him.

Finally, I thought I’d try to show you what I mean by looking closely at the language in these last few points by briefly looking at the excerpt from Claudius’ speech that you posted. I’ll do this in the next post, however, since this one is fairly full!

[Petrarch's Love]

I’m not at all surprised this speech tripped you up, especially when you’re still trying to wrap your head around the age of the language, let alone the complexities of the poetic construction in any age. It’s a speech that a lot of people get caught up on and have trouble with, especially when they aren’t very comfortable with Shakespeare yet. Though you may not yet know why, you are actually asking exactly the right question of this speech: “Just what in the hell is this dude saying?” As it happens, this is part of the point Shakespeare is trying to make with this speech. This is the first time we get to see Claudius, Hamlet’s Uncle and the first time we get an account of what has happened in the court recently. We know from the first scene that there’s something strange going on because the ghost of the dead king is haunting the castle, but we don’t really know much else except that we’ve heard a story about how strong and brave the dead king, Hamlet’s father, was in fighting Denmark’s enemies and how he killed the elder Fortinbras and conquered all his lands (the reason why the young Fortinbras is now mustering men and fixing to cause trouble). Then, in the next scene we get Claudius, and Claudius is a politician (need I say more as to why he’s hard to understand? :P). He’s presenting his version of recent events to his court and to us as readers/audience members. At this point our position as an audience is like someone who has come to visit Elsinore and, after overhearing the conversation between Horatio and the guards on our way in, we witness the king of the place delivering the following oration:


1 Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother's death
2 The memory be green, and that it us befitted
3 To bear our hearts in grief and our whole kingdom
4 To be contracted in one brow of woe,
5 Yet so far hath discretion fought with nature
6 That we with wisest sorrow think on him,
7 Together with remembrance of ourselves.
8 Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,
9 The imperial jointress to this warlike state,
10 Have we, as 'twere with a defeated joy,
11 With an auspicious and a dropping eye,
12 With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
13 In equal scale weighing delight and dole,
14 Taken to wife: nor have we herein barr'd
15 Your better wisdoms, which have freely gone
16 With this affair along. For all, our thanks.
17 Now follows that you know young Fortinbras,
18 Holding a weak supposal of our worth,
19 Or thinking by our late dear brother's death
20 Our state to be disjoint and out of frame,
21 Colleagued with this dream of his advantage,
22 He hath not fail'd to pester us with message,
23 Importing the surrender of those lands
24 Lost by his father, with all bands of law,
25 To our most valiant brother. So much for him.
26 Now for ourself and for this time of meeting:
27 Thus much the business is: we have here writ
28 To Norway, uncle of young Fortinbras—
29 Who, impotent and bed-rid, scarcely hears
30 Of this his nephew's purpose—to suppress
31 His further gait herein; in that the levies,
32 The lists and full proportions, are all made
33 Out of his subject: and we here dispatch
34 You, good Cornelius, and you, Voltemand,
35 For bearers of this greeting to old Norway;
36 Giving to you no further personal power
37 To business with the king, more than the scope
38 Of these delated articles allow.

As I said above, this is a political speech. It’s a very long speech with syntax that is often hard to follow and a lot of double-speak rhetoric that is designed to deflect and obfuscate. Since we as readers are new to this whole situation, we’re trying to figure out what is going on, but it’s tricky. Claudius starts out by alluding to Prince Hamlet’s sorrow at the death of his father, Claudius’ own brother, and at first he is talking in terms of unity in reaction to this tragic event. Both the family and the kingdom ought to be “contracted in one brow of woe.” So far, this seems perfectly reasonable and Claudius is coming off as a fine guy. He is mourning his brother along with his nephew and the rest of the kingdom. Then, in what follows things start getting jumbled up, hard to follow. In line five we get a “yet”, a turning word that contradicts what has just been said in some way. If you trace the language, it seems positive for the most part, and it tends to push the listener toward continuing to receive an impression of Claudius as a ruler worthy of respect. We hear something about how “discretion fought with nature,” about “wisest sorrow,” about “remembrance.” All of these seem like positive things. After all, people admire a king who has the discretion to overcome his own natural emotions or temptations and who is wise. “Remembrance” seems to hearken back sympathetically to the sorrow and mourning he began with. But what is he actually saying? He is talking about “remembrance of ourselves,” which either alludes to him and his wife, or to we who are still alive, or—if he is using the royal “we” here as he does elsewhere in the speech—to himself personally. In any case, he is certainly not making the move that one would expect after all that talk about everyone united as though they shared a single sorrowful brow, which would be to talk about remembering his dead brother. Instead the move is away from remembering the dead and instead to remembering him, the living king. Similarly, by qualifying his sorrow as “wisest” and talking about “discretion” in opposition with “nature” he again is pushing his audience away from siding with the natural feelings of sorrow we’ve already seen associated with Prince Hamlet at the start, and instead privileging his own wisdom and discretion over these emotions. If a person is following the speech closely he or she may begin to wonder why he is talking in this rather round-about way, and why he is creating these kinds of oppositions.

In what follows he is continuing to spin his language to present himself in a positive light. He uses a lot of oppositional language: “defeated joy” “auspicious and a dropping eye” “mirth” and “dirge.” If you’re not analyzing it too closely, when he wraps up that section of the speech by alluding to how he has been “in equal scale weighing delight and dole” it’s easy to get the general impression that he’s a measured and thoughtful ruler. It sounds like he is talking about a sense of balance and sound thinking that is healthy and praiseworthy in a ruler. But what is he saying? That he’s happy at his brother’s funeral. That his recent marriage was an occasion for sadness. If you take the time to really tease out what it is he’s saying, you start to get the sense that things aren’t quite right; that it’s possible that, rather than being well balanced, things are a rather upside down and out of sorts.

But even if someone is starting to feel that there’s something a little off, Claudius quickly steers them into the right way to receive this speech. He returns again to language of unity in lines 15 & 16, right after he finally gets down to the thing he is talking about, the thing he has done. He has “taken to wife,” and he reminds his audience that it is because of “Your better wisdoms, which have freely gone/With this affair along. For all, our thanks.” He sets his speech up to make it sound like it was everyone else’s idea that he get married and that they all agreed and were into the idea. He wants to make it clear that this was the case and to prompt everyone to agree and look happy about this as he thanks them for the support he is going to assume is there.

And if someone isn’t too sure that they do support this marriage? Why then, he starts talking about the big bad enemy Fortinbras, who wants to come make war and conquer the country. He’s set himself up for this earlier at line 9 when he refers to the “warlike state.” A person might well have asked earlier why he is referring to his new wife as an “imperial jointress” ? Why not say “my wife” or “Hamlet’s mother” or “Gertrude” or any number of other straightforward things? “Jointress” is a weird word to use, and he has clearly chosen it with care. Partly he doesn’t want to remind people that this is Hamlet’s mother, or his dead brother’s widow. He doesn’t want them thinking too much about her in those terms. Instead he wants them to think about her as an important political aspect of the “imperial” state. By using the word “warlike” in juxtaposition with “jointress” he accomplishes two things at once. One is that he introduces the word “war” into the speech and in relation to the state, which is bound to make people think about the possibility of the state at war and to make them alarmed, but he introduces this unsettling word paired with the reassuring sense of a strong imperial joining. He also conveys the idea that by joining with Gertrude, by enabling her to be a jointress, he is enabling his state to be “warlike.” This is reminding people that without him married to Gertrude there would be no warlike man at the helm and the country would be vulnerable (this conveniently angling things in a way that elides Hamlet, the son of the late king, completely out of the situation). Later, when he starts talking about Fortinbras more directly, he suggests that the enemy might think , in the wake of his brother the king’s death, “Our state to be disjoint and out of frame.” The thought of the country in chaos and without a leader is a scary one, but luckily he has already planted in the minds of his listeners, the comforting idea of that imperial jointress, that united and warlike state that results from his having “taken to wife”.

I could go on and on about this speech. There’s so much the character Claudius is portrayed doing here. The way he avoids saying anything direct and concrete while giving the impression that he’s making a speech of substance and the kind of spin he’s creating here are amazing. Once you get to where you can parse the speech of a Shakespearean character like Claudius it becomes much easier to slice through the rhetorical obfuscations of blustery modern political speeches and other similar performances. The point is that Shakespeare is purposely creating a speech that he intends for people to react to just as they would the speech of a real powerful political figure. He not only knows, but counts on the fact that some people in the audience are not going to be listening that carefully and will just sort of hear the positive buzzwords and think Claudius seems like a nice guy and a decent ruler. Or that others, like yourself, will just find it confusing and stop listening to the guy. Or that they’ll find it confusing and get kind of suspicious or just not like the character too much. Or that some people in the audience are following pretty well that they’re not being told the whole story here and will start wanting to know what the deal is. These early reactions will be important as the drama unfolds and especially when we get the scene with Hamlet and the ghost of his father, whose refrain of “remember me” hearkens back in contrast to Claudius’ insistence on “remembrance” for “ourselves” (just one of countless instances of how language works to subtly link themes and events across the play). By introducing the situation to us in this way via Claudius, Shakespeare is starting off the play with a sense that we're not hearing the whole story, that the situation is one that contains mystery and uncertainty, and that the ability to understand and control language in the way Claudius does is going to be an important part of the world of this play.

No way you're going to get all that out of a sparknotes translation. :D

[stlukesguild]

...you’re not going to get what is special about Beethoven by hearing the theme from the 9th Symphony played on the harmonica.

Dang! And I had just put in an order for a recent recording of the 9th by the King's College harmonica Band conducted by Sir Simon Rattle.:sosp:

[stlukesguild]

Shakespeare’s language is difficult for two reasons. The first is that it is old and uses archaic words and phrases. The second is that he is writing some very richly layered and complex poetry, which requires some time and thought before you’re going to get the full experience and reward that comes with reading these plays.

I think part of the problem is that poetry is not taught enough... even though students at a young age pick up on poetry in the form of Dr. Zeus or the lyrics in the latest pop song. The focus in grade school literature classes is quite often the novel or short stories with an eye to the plot over everything else. Now certainly I agree with Drkshadow03 that story-telling is an essential element of literature. Many of my favorite writers are nothing if not masterful story-tellers. But there is far more to literature than the narrative just as there is far more to painting than the subject matter (or narrative).

I quite like your analysis of the political posturing and double-speak of Claudius' speech. When one considers the rhetoric, the double-speak, the obfuscation, the twisting of facts, and misuse of words that we see every day in the speech of our current politicians and political commentators, it may indeed be enlightening to recognize that such is not something new. It may even lead one to recognize that there may actually be something of use in understanding language and how it is employed even now in the world in which we live... to be able to look at what is being said by politicians, political commentators and analysts, business representatives, religious leaders, and those trying to sell you something with a critical ear and an ability to see beyond catch phrases of "Socialism", "Liberal", "Conservative", "Elitist", etc...

[Petrarch's Love]

...you’re not going to get what is special about Beethoven by hearing the theme from the 9th Symphony played on the harmonica.

Dang! And I had just put in an order for a recent recording of the 9th by the King's College harmonica Band conducted by Sir Simon Rattle.:sosp:

A classic performance. We should create a discussion about the Rattle recordings on the classical music thread. I'll bring my harmonica.


Shakespeare’s language is difficult for two reasons. The first is that it is old and uses archaic words and phrases. The second is that he is writing some very richly layered and complex poetry, which requires some time and thought before you’re going to get the full experience and reward that comes with reading these plays.

I think part of the problem is that poetry is not taught enough... even though students at a young age pick up on poetry in the form of Dr. Zeus or the lyrics in the latest pop song. The focus in grade school literature classes is quite often the novel or short stories with an eye to the plot over everything else. Now certainly I agree with Drkshadow03 that story-telling is an essential element of literature. Many of my favorite writers are nothing if not masterful story-tellers. But there is far more to literature than the narrative just as there is far more to painting than the subject matter (or narrative).

Well, I'm definitely all for more teaching of poetry. By the way, I am so making my students call me "Dr. Zeus" in the future. It would give them the right idea about how the hierarchy of the classroom works. Best typo I've seen in awhile.


I quite like your analysis of the political posturing and double-speak of Claudius' speech. When one considers the rhetoric, the double-speak, the obfuscation, the twisting of facts, and misuse of words that we see every day in the speech of our current politicians and political commentators, it may indeed be enlightening to recognize that such is not something new. It may even lead one to recognize that there may actually be something of use in understanding language and how it is employed even now in the world in which we live... to be able to look at what is being said by politicians, political commentators and analysts, business representatives, religious leaders, and those trying to sell you something with a critical ear and an ability to see beyond catch phrases of "Socialism", "Liberal", "Conservative", "Elitist", etc...

Thanks. It's a speech I've taught a few times now and I may start making it a regular part of what I address in Hamlet because it often is one that students get frustrated by and is so lamentably applicable to modern times. Yes, I think people underestimate the degree to which having control over language and having an ability to effectively analyze and understand language gives a person a huge advantage (for better or for worse) in life.

[mal4mac]

I do not think Shakespeare's original audiences would agree with you. Many of the groundlings, and not just them, would not have been able to read. Shakespeare's plays were not published until after his death. His reputation was founded on his being a dramatist. And I do not think that Bloom is Holy Writ either. Your remarks about "beginners" is patronising in the extreme. Perhaps you will appreciate the subtleties of the plays better when you read the text. But if you had met as many schoolchildren as I have who were eager to study the play after they had seen it, you might revise your opinion.

Shakespeare original audience had the advantage of seeing the plays directed by Shakespeare! I'd certainly pay to see that :)

We can read, so we might be better off *just* reading and creating our own versions. I quite like some acted versions, e.g., Brannagh and Polanski's, but they are flawed. I just don't see Brannagh as kingly, I'd hate my first impression of Henry V to be Brannagh. Maybe Olivier - but I'd rather make up my own, and then smile wryly at how Brannagh doesn't fit my mental picture, while (admittedly) benefiting from the colourful staging and often clever phrasing.

Certainly Bloom isn't holy writ, but neither are you, I just agree with him here.

When I studied Macbeth at school I saw Polanski's version *after* reading the play. That worked for me - and the rest of the class - the close reading enabled me to understand the language so I could *then* follow it on screen - without the close study I would have been left in the situation of the dumbest groundling - getting excited by the action but understanding nothing.

[mal4mac]

I’m glad to hear you’re still working away at Hamlet (an ambitious place to start, indeed).

Good point. The plot is very convoluted. You might be left wondering 'what was that again'? The solution: re-read it! Not immediately, unless you're extremely keen. You might like to try a few easier plays first - Macbeth is more straightforward, but also great in every sense.

[OrphanPip]

It's also one of Shakespeare's longest plays, if not the longest.

MacBeth is probably the best introduction because of the lack of subplots. Bit late for that now though. :p

[kelby_lake]

It's also one of Shakespeare's longest plays, if not the longest.


It is the longest, and Hamlet has the most lines of any Shakespearean character. The shortest Shakespeare play is The Comedy of Errors.

[OrphanPip]

It is the longest, and Hamlet has the most lines of any Shakespearean character. The shortest Shakespeare play is The Comedy of Errors.

I was reasonably sure it was, but I'm weary about making absolute statements. In retrospect, it was a bit lazy of me, I could have looked up that fact fairly quickly.

[spookymulder93]

I'm at Act 3 scene 4 now when Hamlet is talking with his mother. So far it's better than I expected. Shakespeare didn't get taught in depth to me when I was in high school. To this point I never did know what "To be or not to be" meant. So it deals with whether or not it's better to be alive or dead. Now that's cool.

So far my favorite passage is by the King-  

"Oh, ’tis too true!
How smart a lash that speech doth give my conscience!
The harlot’s cheek, beautied with plastering art,
Is not more ugly to the thing that helps it
Than is my deed to my most painted word.
O heavy burden! "

I still say that modernizing it would help a lot of people in these times to appreciate it more. The side by side comparison on spark notes helps too understand some of the more "difficult" passages. I mean, even in modern language the point that Shakespeare is trying to make still gets across.

"How right he is! His words whip up my guilty feelings. The whore’s pockmarked cheek made pretty with make-up is just like the ugly actions I’m disguising with fine words. What a terrible guilt I feel!"

Once you understand what is being said then you could learn to appreciate the language used.

[brave new tony]

Who exactly scoffed at simple writing, maybe you should consider the possibility that there is something to be gained, something enjoyable, about that complexity. Also, Shakespeare is not difficult to read, and prose need not be simple either.

All I'm seeing in this post is unjustified anti-elitism, surely anyone who reads poetry must be a self-absorbed elitist snob who thinks prose is beneath them.:rolleyes:

First of all, Shakespeare IS difficult to read. If he weren't they wouldn't have to make notes, and modernized transliterations of his works. He wrote in Middle English. I don't know about you but I do not gasp when I hear "Sblood".

Second, I am not anti-elitist. I would hardly consider those who like poetry and Shakespeare as elite. I am against those who scoff at literature just because it has simple prose.

[spookymulder93]

I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree. I just got done with Hamlet and I'll admit that it was good. I was surprised at just how thought provoking it was.

With that being said, the side by side works out for the best IN MY OPINION.

[stlukesguild]

First of all, Shakespeare IS difficult to read.

"Difficult" is a relative term. "Difficult" to who? He was certainly "difficult" to me as a 16-year-old with little experience of older forms of English or of poetry. He is quite easy to me now with far more reading under my belt. By comparison with Chaucer or Langland in the original Middle-English... or with James Joyce' Finnegan's Wake, he is a breeze. One might also ask... is ease of reading a measure of the work's merits? There are works that I find quite easy to read that are also quite marvelous. On the other hand... there are works that present the greatest of cognitive challenges: Blake's epic poems, Emily Dickinson, John Milton, Stéphane Mallarmé... but these difficulties are greatly rewarded... and there are those who revel in the challenges such reading provides (just as others revel crossword puzzles or word searches) because of the pleasure afforded.

If he weren't they wouldn't have to make notes, and modernized transliterations of his works. He wrote in Middle English. I don't know about you but I do not gasp when I hear "Sblood".

All art involves a "language"... and the "language" must be learned: the syntax, structure, rhythm, metaphor, etc... We learn through experience and exposure. Some artistic works seem to come easy to us... but this is because they are constructed of a language similar to what we are familiar and experienced with. Elizabethan poetry, and opera, and medieval painting strike many as initially "difficult" because they are quite foreign to the writing, music, and visual imagery that they are familiar with. But one of the major values of art is that it introduces the audience to other possibilities beyond their own experiences, beliefs, values, standards, and even prejudices.

Second, I am not anti-elitist. I would hardly consider those who like poetry and Shakespeare as elite. I am against those who scoff at literature just because it has simple prose.

I don't think anyone here has scoffed at simple prose. Some of my favorite writers, including J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Franz Kafka, among others, write in a comparatively 'simple" prose manner... and yet the resulting works are anything but "simplistic".

[JBI]

First of all, Shakespeare IS difficult to read. If he weren't they wouldn't have to make notes, and modernized transliterations of his works. He wrote in Middle English. I don't know about you but I do not gasp when I hear "Sblood".

Second, I am not anti-elitist. I would hardly consider those who like poetry and Shakespeare as elite. I am against those who scoff at literature just because it has simple prose.

Just to point something out, he didn't write in Middle English. He wrote in Elizabeth English, which is something much different. His language is much closer to ours than it is to the Pearl Poet's. Also, your equation of literature with prose is disheartening. Shakespeare isn't difficult because he wrote in verse, in truth, he isn't even that difficult compared to his contemporary Spenser, who is far, far, harder to read, in terms of lexicography. Even so, his presumed difficulty comes from the fact that people are lazy, and they have no desire to unpack metaphors and prefer simple diction and no figuration.

Such people aught not to be reading Shakespeare in the first place, they should start with something more basic, and learn to conceptualize things beyond direct discourse.

[stlukesguild]

...his presumed difficulty comes from the fact that people are lazy...

Now, now, JBI! Keep talking that way and people are going to presume you are a snooty elitist.:hand:

[IceM]

Yes, it loses value. The Signet versions of the Shakespeare plays is single-handedly the worst literary purchase of my life. Reading Shakespeare with modern English loses the archaic feel. Some metaphors lose the allure that they had with inverted syntax, and all those other lovely devices.

It just makes classics feel diluted.

[stlukesguild]

I agree that there is indeed a certain romantic allure to the use of an outmoded or archaic language. It is partially for this reason that I despise even the modernized spellings employed by editors in printing the texts of Shakespeare, Spenser... even Blake. But there is something far more to it. In all the arts, the idea and the form are so intertwined that we cannot simply separate them. The "meaning" of Wagner is tied up in his lush orchestrations. The content of Matisse is not something that can be separated from his use of color. What Shakespeare conveys in intrinsically interwoven with his use of language. The value of each is to be found in the experience... not in the destination... or the definition. The pleasure is to be found in being enveloped in color or sound or language as they evolve... and not in coming to the end and "getting it"... reducing it to a simple "meaning". "Oh... I get Hamlet... won't need to read that again." :goof:

[spookymulder93]

What if you get pleasure out of "getting it"? Or are you saying Shakespeare can't really be got without first having an appreciation for the language. The thing that struck me most about Hamlet was his speeches about life and death. I didn't really care how the words were arranged I just cared for the content.

[JBI]

...his presumed difficulty comes from the fact that people are lazy...

Now, now, JBI! Keep talking that way and people are going to presume you are a snooty elitist.:hand:

Nah, I didn't pass a value judgment. To be honest, I stopped caring what people read, I now only care what people think is worthy of discussion, and as such, Twilight doesn't bring much to the table.

It seems with mediocre fiction the only discussion people can have with it, is whether or not it is good or not - if it were good, simply put, that discussion would go to something within the text.

As such, arguments toward Shakespeare and language being modernized tend to miss the point, in that, Shakespeare's language, in almost any edition one gets these days has been edited.

Most people aren't reading facsimiles of Quarto and Folio editions, so they are getting "modernized" Shakespeare, in the sense that the language has been put into a form that more or less is equivalent to our own.

What people really mean when they say "modernized version" is "dumbed down" version.

Chaucer is a different animal, because he is far more difficult to read, and his language is far removed from our own. That really requires a real education to get into the original with any sense of order or accuracy of pronunciation. Even Elizabethans had difficulty, we must remember, and the great Dryden essay praising his ground breaking, though metrically uneven verse is made comical when one now reflects that there were 10 syllables and 5 stresses on the line, Dryden just didn't have the ability to pronounce things properly.

As such, modernizing that, I can say that for serious discussion I prefer to stay away from it, but for the every day reader, I think a side-by-side translation would be ideal, so that at least one could see how the real language works.

But honestly, if you take away the archaic in Spenser, you lose much of Spenser, if you modernize Shakespeare, you merely dumb it down.

As removed as these authors seem, post-Gascoigne poets seem to be writing in a language that is more or less equivalent to our own, with its own tropes and peculiarities of course. What is really being changed is style, not language, and as such, it is like taking verse and paraphrasing it into prose and calling it modernized when really it is just made boring.

[Technophile]

Didn't Shakespeare invent a lot of the language that's in his plays? The word 'puking' springs to mind as an example!

[kelby_lake]

What if you get pleasure out of "getting it"? Or are you saying Shakespeare can't really be got without first having an appreciation for the language. The thing that struck me most about Hamlet was his speeches about life and death. I didn't really care how the words were arranged I just cared for the content.

I'm sure subconsciously you did care. If it had been written like this:

Yo, should I kill meself? Should I like give up? Hmm, yeah, that would be good. But wouldn't everybody do it then? Hmm, there must be some bad stuff going

[IceM]

What if you get pleasure out of "getting it"? Or are you saying Shakespeare can't really be got without first having an appreciation for the language. The thing that struck me most about Hamlet was his speeches about life and death. I didn't really care how the words were arranged I just cared for the content.

If the language is changed, Shakespeare is no longer the author. It is then Shakespeare and (insert name here of editors). It loses most of the archaic, yet magical essence of the play. At least, that's how I feel.

[stlukesguild]

Chaucer is a different animal, because he is far more difficult to read, and his language is far removed from our own. That really requires a real education to get into the original with any sense of order or accuracy of pronunciation. Even Elizabethans had difficulty, we must remember, and the great Dryden essay praising his ground breaking, though metrically uneven verse is made comical when one now reflects that there were 10 syllables and 5 stresses on the line, Dryden just didn't have the ability to pronounce things properly.

While I quite embrace Pound's assertion that anyone too lazy to master the small vocabulary needed to read Chaucer in the original should be banned from good books forever, I would qualify this by noting that Chaucer is probably not for the beginning reader. As you note, the pronunciations and spellings (which were far more fluid) effect the flow and rhythm and do involve a good deal of background knowledge and some experience with older English. Shakespeare is far more accessible... far less demanding.

What is really being changed is style, not language, and as such, it is like taking verse and paraphrasing it into prose and calling it modernized when really it is just made boring.

I agree... and I quite suspect that those calling for a modernized/dumbed-down Shakespeare would be just a likely to desire a modernized/dumbed down Yeats, Stevens, T.S. Eliot, Roethke, Hecht, Wilbur, etc... As I mentioned in discussion with Petrarch'sLove, part of the problem is a lack of experience or exposure to poetry outside of the lyrics in pop music (which is why we get those repeated threads on the poetic brilliance of Led Zeppelin lyrics). Very few people seem to have any grasp of poetry or how it works.

What if you get pleasure out of "getting it"? Or are you saying Shakespeare can't really be got without first having an appreciation for the language.

Yes. That's what I'm saying.

The thing that struck me most about Hamlet was his speeches about life and death. I didn't really care how the words were arranged I just cared for the content.

You are mistaking narrative or subject matter for "content". The content of any work of art is created through the merger of subject/narrative and the form it is given. The subject matter of these works of art is essentially the same:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4075/4872433090_02b650517d_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/4872432938_6b6bfac391.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4118/4872432984_941ab0d2c8.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/4871973585_a7b6c48938_z.jpg

The subject of each painting is simply the portrait of an unknown girl. The content however... what each painting conveys... is quite different from one to the next. This is achieved through the form... the way the artist employs his or her visual language: lighting, color, details, point-of view, the selection of a specific pose and facial expression, etc... The "content" is interwoven with the form. Now the last image is simplified. I "get it". Its a girl... but it loses the vast majority of the content that can be found in the other painting as a result of this simplification. Essentially, it is dumbed-down so that we can rapidly understand it... but is it worth spending any time with. Somehow I doubt it.

In other words... the content owes much to the form... the language. Just as Petrach'sLove suggested that Wagner's lushly orchestrated music reduced to a ring-tone, or Beethoven's 9th Symphony played on harmonica will lose much of what makes them so splendid, so Shakespeare... or any writer... reduced to a mere synopsis... loses much that is essential to what makes them worth reading.

Yes... there is a pleasure in "getting it"... but this is not the end-all/be-all...

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

What does the poem essentially say? I love my mistress even though she fails to match all the false comparisons made by poets from time immortal. If the value of the poem were reduced to merely the synopsis... to getting it... then I "get it" and I should be able to move on without ever needing to read it again. Indeed, I might question why he didn't just come out and say this? Indeed why did Dickens waste time writing a long novel such as Nicholas Nickleby... when he might have just come out and said "Poverty sucks"? That is because the value of literature or music or any art... perhaps not unlike life itself... is to be found in the pleasure of the experience... not in the conclusion or the meaning. In literature this means the the pleasure is to be found in the language, the use of symbols and metaphor, the development of character, setting , and atmosphere... in the work as a whole... not merely in the plot synopsis.

[Evrviglnt]

This might not be very popular with some, but when I started to read Shakespeare, I took a different approach. I went to my library and I got the audio versions. I happened upon reproductions done by a team of actors so well versed and done with such passion that many times, as I drove to work, my eyes would fill with tears. Granted, I listened to them many, many times - and found that after a while you get the jist of it, and like anything, the more you do it the better you understand it.

The drawback is that sometimes you lose track of who is who, and must pay great attention to the details. But after spending time immersing myself in it, when I purchased the books and perused the pages, it was like meeting an old friend and finding out that they're even more beautiful in person than I thought.

So - if the point is to appreciate what is the finest of the craft - then we must educate ourselves into a condition that can appreciate what it is we're being gifted with. Someone earlier in this thread compared modernizing classic language to listening to Beethoven in concert and then listening to a ring tone version - that was awesome. Masterpieces - and the masters that create them - must be read in their native tongue to truly appreciate them both. Let Will inspire you:


Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind;
And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind.