Paula Sjogerman

on 10/7/04 12:47 PM, [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote:

> "Some rehashed old stories" is pretty harsh about something like Hamlet, or
> Henry V.


Still true, though.

And Hamlet has very little plot to speak of anyway.

I agree that playing with the time frame is fun. And that if good writers or
poets use the ideas and rework them, great. I'm just talking about the idea
of "translating" the words of Shakespeare into modern words.

Paula

Fetteroll

on 10/7/04 2:11 PM, Paula Sjogerman at sjogy@... wrote:

> I'm just talking about the idea
> of "translating" the words of Shakespeare into modern words.

But I don't see why you'd fear a translation would replace Shakespeare's
original works. I do see a side by side translation making Shakespeare more
accessible and, therefore, intriguing to many people.

I saw Disney's Pocahontas. It made me more curious to know what the real
story was.

Part of the barrier to Shakespeare is trying to understand the story while
trying to understand the words. (Kids are probably a lot better at it since
they are used to pulling meaning out of speech without understanding all the
words.) As I read the translation and then the original I could appreciate
better his use of words because of the contrast of the modern words and
because the modern words gave me the gist of what he was trying to say.

Joyce

Julie

*** But I don't see why you'd fear a translation would replace Shakespeare's
original works. I do see a side by side translation making Shakespeare more
accessible and, therefore, intriguing to many people.***

In the past I have read Charles and Mary Lamb's versions of Shakespeare
before reading the orginal works. It made it easier to understand the
language. I agree that side by side translations will make Shakespeare more
accessible and be the bridge to many people becoming comfortable reading the
original language. Takes away the "I'll never be able to understand this so
why bother" for kids required to read it too.

Julie

Julie