Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2022 17:19:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Jan 24, 2022 18:34:56 GMT
What I gleaned from the article is the rewrites are a fresh approach to works by earlier writers / storytellers which Shakespeare adapted.
One consequence would be it's continuing an old tradition of reworking a story / plot for later generations. The literature / theater of Elizabethan / Jacobean England is a bit different from today, though the rewriting of older stories for a new audience hasn't changed that much.
Another consequence would potentially be getting young adults in school to pay more attention to a story they might otherwise be bored of. Most would balk at reading Shakespeare's work as written originally. Early Modern English, which was used in Shakespeare's time is not quite he same as the language of today.
859 Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,
Once, as old histories tell us,
860 Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;
There was a duke who was called Theseus;
861 Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,
He was lord and governor of Athens,
862 And in his tyme swich a conquerour
And in his time such a conqueror 863 That gretter was ther noon under the sonne.
That there was no one greater under the sun.
864 Ful many a riche contree hadde he wonne;
Very many a powerful country had he won;
865 What with his wysdom and his chivalrie,
What with his wisdom and his chivalry,
866 He conquered al the regne of Femenye,
He conquered all the land of the Amazons,
867 That whilom was ycleped Scithia,
That once was called Scithia,
868 And weddede the queene Ypolita,
And wedded the queen Ypolita,
|
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Jan 25, 2022 0:44:08 GMT
A particular group well known of writers, who are also friends, often challenge each other to write different versions of classics. Shakespeare as been modernised many times.
|
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Jan 25, 2022 0:51:47 GMT
I own some old books with many of his plays in, they are not really that hard to understand
In sooth, I know not why I am so sad:
It wearies me; you say it wearies you;
But how I caught it, found it, or came by it,
What stuff 'tis made of, whereof it is born,
I am to learn;
And such a want-wit sadness makes of me,
That I have much ado to know myself.
He was a great deal later than Chaucer, and not really the same English, and no doubt copied many times by hand and not printed. But indeed, until English became standardised it can be hard to understand, and no doubt from region to region.
|
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Jan 25, 2022 0:55:40 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2022 7:09:58 GMT
A particular group well known of writers, who are also friends, often challenge each other to write different versions of classics. Shakespeare as been modernised many times. That's interesting, the challenge. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2022 7:22:30 GMT
What I gleaned from the article is the rewrites are a fresh approach to works by earlier writers / storytellers which Shakespeare adapted.
One consequence would be it's continuing an old tradition of reworking a story / plot for later generations. The literature / theater of Elizabethan / Jacobean England is a bit different from today, though the rewriting of older stories for a new audience hasn't changed that much.
Another consequence would potentially be getting young adults in school to pay more attention to a story they might otherwise be bored of. Most would balk at reading Shakespeare's work as written originally. Early Modern English, which was used in Shakespeare's time is not quite he same as the language of today.
859 Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,
Once, as old histories tell us,
860 Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;
There was a duke who was called Theseus;
861 Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,
He was lord and governor of Athens,
862 And in his tyme swich a conquerour
And in his time such a conqueror 863 That gretter was ther noon under the sonne.
That there was no one greater under the sun.
864 Ful many a riche contree hadde he wonne;
Very many a powerful country had he won;
865 What with his wysdom and his chivalrie,
What with his wisdom and his chivalry,
866 He conquered al the regne of Femenye,
He conquered all the land of the Amazons,
867 That whilom was ycleped Scithia,
That once was called Scithia,
868 And weddede the queene Ypolita,
And wedded the queen Ypolita,
A great answer, thought about it all night. The Chaucer is thrilling. I do not enjoy Shakespeare, but I do not think it's a good idea to change the language. It cheapens it. It would be like changing the costumes of the 19th century to something we'd wear today. Imagine redoing Pride and Prejuduce, changing the language and clothing in the movie adaptation. It also invokes 1984 for me. Didn't they rewrite the books? We should learn, adapt, embrace what was for what it was. I started reading The Wife of Bath for a course in university. I thought, ok, I don't recognize a single word. How am I going to write a paper on this? Lo and behold, I started laughing midway through. The brain adapts. It surprises you. |
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Jan 25, 2022 14:01:17 GMT
A particular group well known of writers, who are also friends, often challenge each other to write different versions of classics. Shakespeare as been modernised many times. That's interesting, the challenge. |
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Jan 25, 2022 14:06:28 GMT
One problem of course is when books are made in to film and TV series, they are often rewritten anyway, which is annoying at times. But it's often the only way many people get to experience the stories. Easier to watch something then to read it. It always amuses me that films etc based in the distance past, the actors always speak modern English, often with an American accent  |
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Jan 25, 2022 14:40:07 GMT
What I gleaned from the article is the rewrites are a fresh approach to works by earlier writers / storytellers which Shakespeare adapted.
One consequence would be it's continuing an old tradition of reworking a story / plot for later generations. The literature / theater of Elizabethan / Jacobean England is a bit different from today, though the rewriting of older stories for a new audience hasn't changed that much.
Another consequence would potentially be getting young adults in school to pay more attention to a story they might otherwise be bored of. Most would balk at reading Shakespeare's work as written originally. Early Modern English, which was used in Shakespeare's time is not quite he same as the language of today.
859 Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,
Once, as old histories tell us,
860 Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;
There was a duke who was called Theseus;
861 Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,
He was lord and governor of Athens,
862 And in his tyme swich a conquerour
And in his time such a conqueror 863 That gretter was ther noon under the sonne.
That there was no one greater under the sun.
864 Ful many a riche contree hadde he wonne;
Very many a powerful country had he won;
865 What with his wysdom and his chivalrie,
What with his wisdom and his chivalry,
866 He conquered al the regne of Femenye,
He conquered all the land of the Amazons,
867 That whilom was ycleped Scithia,
That once was called Scithia,
868 And weddede the queene Ypolita,
And wedded the queen Ypolita,
A great answer, thought about it all night. The Chaucer is thrilling. I do not enjoy Shakespeare, but I do not think it's a good idea to change the language. It cheapens it. It would be like changing the costumes of the 19th century to something we'd wear today. Imagine redoing Pride and Prejuduce, changing the language and clothing in the movie adaptation. It also invokes 1984 for me. Didn't they rewrite the books? We should learn, adapt, embrace what was for what it was. I started reading The Wife of Bath for a course in university. I thought, ok, I don't recognize a single word. How am I going to write a paper on this? Lo and behold, I started laughing midway through. The brain adapts. It surprises you.
Sometimes a previous iteration of a language is unrecognizable to people, other times the way language was once used, as in the allusions, will have people of a later time misunderstanding what was originally meant.
Consider, "West Side Story" [musical version 1957, movie versions 1961 and 2020] is a modern adaptation of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" written in 1597, which is a retelling of Arthur Brooke's "The Tragicall Tale of Romeus and Juliet" written in 1562, which is a retelling from a French translation of a work written by the Italian author Matteo Bandello [c. 1480 - 1562]. Simply put, Shakespeare's version isn't the original and won't be the last.
If someone dislikes "Romeo and Juliet" but loves "West Side Story", the positive note is that person found a way to engage.
People have been retelling and rewriting the same stories for a long time, and I suspect they will continue to do so long after I'm dust.
|
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Jan 25, 2022 14:58:09 GMT
Very true, but often simply Telling, around campfires, for many generations, and increasingly exaggerated usually. The Vikings, for example, did not have a written language, but many stories. The written word was also very expensive. Actual books excruciatingly so because they were hand copied by teams of scribes (who often changed texts they did not fully understand, plus poor translations.) They still were not exactly cheap even after the invention of the printing press that used cast movable type. The most hand-copied and later printed book, was the Bible. Often the only people who could read were kings and monks.
But indeed, many stories are far from new. I think the original Robin Hood story was originally French, not English, as an example of many.
|
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Jan 25, 2022 15:00:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Jan 25, 2022 16:27:52 GMT
Very true, but often simply Telling, around campfires, for many generations, and increasingly exaggerated usually. The Vikings, for example, did not have a written language, but many stories. The written word was also very expensive. Actual books excruciatingly so because they were hand copied by teams of scribes (who often changed texts they did not fully understand, plus poor translations.) They still were not exactly cheap even after the invention of the printing press that used cast movable type. The most hand-copied and later printed book, was the Bible. Often the only people who could read were kings and monks. But indeed, many stories are far from new. I think the original Robin Hood story was originally French, not English, as an example of many. The Vikings did have a system of writing, and while it is assumed today they didn't use said system much this may be due to the fact few Viking documents written on paper or parchment have survived. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2022 21:38:56 GMT
A great answer, thought about it all night. The Chaucer is thrilling. I do not enjoy Shakespeare, but I do not think it's a good idea to change the language. It cheapens it. It would be like changing the costumes of the 19th century to something we'd wear today. Imagine redoing Pride and Prejuduce, changing the language and clothing in the movie adaptation. It also invokes 1984 for me. Didn't they rewrite the books? We should learn, adapt, embrace what was for what it was. I started reading The Wife of Bath for a course in university. I thought, ok, I don't recognize a single word. How am I going to write a paper on this? Lo and behold, I started laughing midway through. The brain adapts. It surprises you.
Sometimes a previous iteration of a language is unrecognizable to people, other times the way language was once used, as in the allusions, will have people of a later time misunderstanding what was originally meant.
Consider, "West Side Story" [musical version 1957, movie versions 1961 and 2020] is a modern adaptation of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" written in 1597, which is a retelling of Arthur Brooke's "The Tragicall Tale of Romeus and Juliet" written in 1562, which is a retelling from a French translation of a work written by the Italian author Matteo Bandello [c. 1480 - 1562]. Simply put, Shakespeare's version isn't the original and won't be the last.
If someone dislikes "Romeo and Juliet" but loves "West Side Story", the positive note is that person found a way to engage.
People have been retelling and rewriting the same stories for a long time, and I suspect they will continue to do so long after I'm dust.
True, there was a time when storytelling was only oral. You've expanded my mind, and switched me to the other side, for if we did not rewrite stories, there would be no translations. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2022 21:42:27 GMT
Sometimes a previous iteration of a language is unrecognizable to people, other times the way language was once used, as in the allusions, will have people of a later time misunderstanding what was originally meant.
Consider, "West Side Story" [musical version 1957, movie versions 1961 and 2020] is a modern adaptation of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" written in 1597, which is a retelling of Arthur Brooke's "The Tragicall Tale of Romeus and Juliet" written in 1562, which is a retelling from a French translation of a work written by the Italian author Matteo Bandello [c. 1480 - 1562]. Simply put, Shakespeare's version isn't the original and won't be the last.
If someone dislikes "Romeo and Juliet" but loves "West Side Story", the positive note is that person found a way to engage.
People have been retelling and rewriting the same stories for a long time, and I suspect they will continue to do so long after I'm dust.
True, there was a time when storytelling was only oral. You've expanded my mind, and switched me to the other side, for if we did not rewrite stories, there would be no translations. So one can think that adaptations are translations. From old language to new language. From one language to another. |
|
