the chutry experiment

That's just ridiculous. Why not provide careful annotations that help students work through the nuances of the text, rather than just giving them a "translation"? At that point, wouldn't you cease to study "Shakespeare" and begin studying "The Story of Romeo and Juliet" ... ?

Also, doesn't Middle English phase out in the 14th or 15th century, well before Shakespeare?

Yeah, Middle English had phased out. I think I wrote that entry a little too late last night (that was my word choice, not the article's).

JESUS, how stupid...

OK -- i should say more...
The side-by-side text (original and "translation") idea is not wholly bad, unless students read from the "translation" only, which they would no doubt do. But as for *replacing* the Elizabethan English with the translation altogether, one effect is to flatten the figurative quality of the language. Example from the article:

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones."

— Act 3, Scene 2.

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, give me your attention. I have come here to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do is remembered after their deaths, but the good is often buried with them."

— Same scene, "No Fear Shakespeare" translation.

The translation is just insufficient. Evil "living" after the person who intiated it has died is simply not the same thing as evil "remembered," for one. I could go on, but what's the point?

So, back to my orignal comment on the idea of replacing the original with translation:

JESUS, how stupid....

It would be interesting to have the students themselves translate a passage or scene. I'm taking my cue here from artist Tim Rollins and KOS (Kids of Survivial), who have translated Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound in a colloquial register. See:

http://www.diacenter.org/kos/kostranslation.html

Mike: You're right, many of these translations are awful. Quite honestly, I'd be very surprised if students didn't understand the concept of evil "living" after someone has died.

Kari: I think this would be a great idea. Possibly have small groups of students re-interpret key scenes from the play (and then "perform" them for the class). The result would be that students would be required to become active producers of the text rather than passive recipients of it. This would run the risk of students "misinterpreting," but in a small group, that problem would hopefully be minimized.

I struggled with not really appreciating Shakespeare until college... when I took the upperclass-level Shakespeare class and found that a lot of time was spent with the professor reading the text -- but reading it in such a way that it illuminated the meaning. Chuck -- did you take Dr. W's Shakespeare class? I thought it would be boring, but I found it elevated my appreciation of Shakespeare. I still love the language to this day...

My point is, understanding the language was what finally made me appreciate it. I agree with the others here that having a 'translation' would only serve to spoon-feed a student, giving him or her something to read INSTEAD of the text. It's kind of like providing the CLiff's Notes for the student and just going ahead and letting them use that instead of the actual text.

Okay, I'm exaggerating. A little.

Yeah, I did take Shakespeare with Dr. W. I *think* we may have been in the same class, actually (if I recall, you wrote a paper on "Merchant of Venice"--not sure *why* I remember that). Having the other course on Shakespeare (amplified by the number of performances we saw) in Cambridge really helped.

I agree--learning to understand the language is what made Shakespeare seem valuable to me. I think that what I find problematic is that these classes consistently seem to underestimate students, especially students who are ostensibly college-bound.

I THOUGHT we were in the same class but couldn't recall, LOL. And then I forgot to mention it. So long ago... and you should stop ragging on your own memory since you recalled accurately that I wrote a paper on Merchant of Venice. I wonder what compelled me to write about that play, since I am a bigger fan of the major tragedies.

After seeing Ian McKellen's Richard III in London (you went, too, didn't you?), I count that as my favorite play and my favorite individual performance of Shakespeare.

No question that McKellan's Rhcirad III is my favorite individual performance of Shakespeare. Don't know if I have a favorite play, but that would be among them--I like the histories quite a bit. Henry IV, Part I, which we read with Dr. W, was one of the first plays where I finally "got it," so I have a fondness for that one, too.

I guess I'm a little perplexed about what I remember and what I forget. Maybe it's not about "good" or "bad" memory skills after all...

I go back and forth on "favorite play" -- Richard III is just the "current favorite." I really really love Hamlet, but it seems almost pedestrian to say so these days... but it's like saying your favorite candy is "chocolate." It just seems so ordinary to say it, but the reality is that Hamlet, when well-performed, always awes me with its language and passion.

Middle English? Ain't that what them critters speak in Middle Earth?

But seriously, there's no shame in admitting that Hamlet's your favorite play. I don't think it's necessary to demean a work simply because it has become hackneyed to praise it (although I must admit I have been tempted to do so myself).

Speaking of hackneyed -- has anyone not yet heard of the game Humiliation in David Lodge's novel "Changing Places"?. Each player names a work of literature they haven't read, and earns a point for every other player who's read it. In the novel, the game is played by English professors, and the winner ends up being the professor who blurts out "Hamlet!" He's seen it but never read it. He easily wins the game but he's up for tenure, and the department just can't see itself granting tenure to a man who's just admitted he hasn't read "Hamlet."

I enjoyed McKellen's Richard III too but then read a damning article that convinced me that that interpretation was mostly wrong. If only I could remember where that article was. . .

Yes I do realize it's popular to say all interpretations are equally valid. But I tend to follow the dictum "There may be more than one right interpretation, but there are still wrong interpretations." Can't remember who said that either although I think it was Ned Rorem.

Chris M: Chris H. and I actually had a chance to see McKellan perform the play onstage in London in 1991 (coincidentally during Gulf War I). The film grew out of the success of the stage version, which was amazing (quite a bit more powerful than the film), but I liked the movie, too.

Regarding "wrong interpretations," I think Stanley Fish said something like that when defending "reader response" criticism, that no matter what, a text like "A Rose for Emily" could not possibly be read as being "about Eskimoes." Not sure Fish got there first, and I'll resist all "fish" puns--they've already been done to death.

I played the David Lodge game a few times before I knew where it originated. Comes with the territory of being a grad student, I think. I used to answer "Moby Dick," but then I found out that many of my colleagues had never read it, either. There could probably be a film studies equivalent--the American film scholar who has never seen "Citizen Kane," for example (yes, I've seen CK).

Having read quite a bit from and about Stanley Fish, I've never come across a fish pun. Are they really that common? Of course, my forte is music and I'm shocked when I come across people who've never heard a viola joke, so . . .

I don't know if the game actually originated with Lodge. I suspect it was in existence before the particular instance he mentions in the novel. I think it would be interesting to play a version of the game with works that you started to read or watch but didn't finish (due to boredom, apathy, disgust, etc. but not due to external circumstances.)

My book would probably be Ada or Ardor. Among films, I quit halfway through both 8 1/2 and Andrei Rublev. (That's the sound of my film studies application hitting the bottom of the trash can.)

Hm I think I'll start a thread on this on my blog.

I am in tenth grade,age sixteen. I am absolutely sick of English class and reading through horrible Shakespearean plays in King James English that makes no sense whatsoever to the modern reader. I am sick of having to read revolting "Classic" book report books like Prince and the Pauper. I recently had to write a Julius Caesar Act IV summary,and got so mad that I printed two copies of it,handed one in to my teacher,and as for the other one, I ripped it up and flushed it down the toilet. Don't get me wrong. I understand that 55 year old wimmen like my English teacher enjoy reading that garbage. I really like football(soccer)if the truth be known,and I am sure that the Shakespeare fanatics hate it. Here's a message to the old grandmothers like my English teacher:HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF YOU HAD TO WRITE REPORTS ON REAL MADRID AND BLACKBURN ROVERS??????