Well, you & Lord Fellowes ought to collaborate on a volume of Translated Shakespeare–I won’t stop you! Your cultured home environment gave you all the advantages; let Fellowes speak for himself.
Who is the “elitist” here? You both claim you have very special knowledge–unlike the crowds who flock to Shakespeare plays throughout the English speaking world. They only think they enjoy the experience…
Concerning your complaint about “edited” Shakespeare–aren’t most productions cut a bit, at least for length? The word you are looking for is Bowdlerization–where the naughty bits are removed.
Houston Grand Opera uses surtitles, not subtitles. I think they’are fine.
Oh, please - there’s nothing “special” about being exposed to other dialects and languages. It’s not more “special” than someone who grew up in a bilingual household being fluent in English and Spanish at the same time.
Everyone is capable of learning more language, but not everyone actually has done so. Nor does everyone have the same fluency. I can read and comprehend spoken French to a certain level but I’m not fluent. I can enjoy watching a movie in French up to a point but subtleties of language will be lost on me. So what? I can still enjoy what I understand, and maybe I’ll gravitate towards movies that aren’t subtle. On the other hand, I don’t know Spanish beyond a few words. If I watch a movie or play in Spanish I might get the plot from the action, but the language is incomprehensible to me. That doesn’t make Spanish speakers “elitist” nor does it make me uneducated.
Some of the global Shakespeare audience will be fluent in the language, others won’t, but that doesn’t bar everyone from deriving enjoyment from a play.
Nope, they not only bowdlerized them, they cut them for length. Which goes a long way towards explaining why a lot of students found them hard to understand, big chunks of them were missing.
To gain a full appreciation of Shakespeare you need a lot of extensive study in the context of an excellent education, and that’s always been the case. Most people don’t have that. But to just gain enough appreciation to have a really entertaining couple of hours, all you need is common understanding of modern English and some good actors.
All my academic experience with Shakespeare was in high school (read something like 6-8 plays), so it’s not like I’ve done in-depth study and research to learn to enjoy it.
Doesn’t everyone (in the US at least) read some plays in HS? My kids started with Merchant of Venice and *Romeo and Juliet *in middle school. Even my husband, who went to a small rural school in the deep south, read four Shakespeare plays in high school.
I don’t think you need to be some Elizabethan scholar to enjoy reading (and certainly not watching) many of the plays. I think some people approach the books with the presumption they’re elitist or difficult and put up barriers for themselves.
So what? As I said before, even Shakespeare cut Shakespeare. Now I’d agree that wholesale random chopping is counter-productive, but a decent editing job by a competent Shakespearean actor can tighten up many a play of Will’s that drags through parts. Hamlet is the biggest offender of the lot. There is no reason on earth for that play to run almost 4 hours, unless the actors are getting paid by the minute.
And with that, I have completed my 40,000th post, and still haven’t said anything that added to the Human Condition.
-not everyone goes to high school, or finishes high school if they do go.
-There are more and more people being home schooled these days who might or might not be introduced to Shakespeare
-It’s possible that Shakespeare in schools is becoming less common, but I haven’t been inside a public school for more than 30 years so don’t quote me on that.
Just take my word for it - whomever did the editing for the “textbook” versions of the Bard’s play for my high school was a butcher. It was truly terrible. I’m guessing it was done by a committee of some sort.
I can say in my experience (2 kids in two different public high schools, one in a wealthy community, one urban city center) it’s still being taught- and as I mentioned- often now in middle school. However, of course there are going to be those individuals that missed out.
My entire point, though, was that it doesn’t take a tremendous amount of specialized dialect or academic education to be able to enjoy Shakespeare. If middle school and basic HS curricula can tackle it, many people with a good annotated copy can independently tackle it too, if they want to. Those who call Shakespeare elitist and academic kind of miss the reality of how successfully it is read by the average 12-16 year olds, with a bit of guidance.
FWIW, my kids used the same Folger editions I used in high school- the editing seemed very reasonable and standard. Here’s a great digital library: http://www.folgerdigitaltexts.org/ You can link to annotated digital versions through that link. I haven’t explored it much, but took a quick look.
Wasn’t there that time when you…no, that was Polycarp. So I guess you haven’t, but if you haven’t, does that mean I’m a drag on the Human Condition?
I had to read The Pilgrim’s Progress in 4th grade. I had never heard of allegories or archetypes, especially of the beat you over the head repeatedly sort (by comparison Goofus and Gallant is subtle), so when faced with it in all its head-banging glory I assumed it was supposed to be funny. Except it wasn’t. We also read a bit of Trollope, which I gathered was supposed to be funny. It wasn’t, but it was an easier read.
There was a series of books back around 1980 that took each play and printed the originasl version on one page, with a “modern” English version on the facing page.
I gave up on it when I saw that “Angels and Ministers of Grace Defend Us!” from Hamlet became “Help!”
