Not just footnoted, or summarized, like the Lamb series, but actually translated so that you could read it line for line without footnotes.
They’re already in Modern English. The Modern English period started around 1550, with the Great Vowel Shift. But that’s a technical nitpick…
The plays have been performed using contemporary language. Some movies have been made. So it has been done. Whether you can buy the plays in book form in contemporary English, I don’t know.
Paraphrases exist, but there’s not much point to them. Shakespeare’s language is what makes him worth reading, and they’re already in modern English, and not all that difficult to read for anyone with a high-school education and a bit of patience.
Man this winter sure has me unhappy, but this son (see, get it son and sun, it’s a joke) of York has made summer really kickass! All the clouds around our house are now out over the ocean.
Yo Romeo, why’dya have to be Romeo? Ditch the 'rents and pretend you’re not related. Or just promise to be my man and I’ll flick off my own family.
You know, I’m not sure the original Shakesperean English isn’t easier, actually.
<mod>
Whether 'tis nobler to keep this thread in GQ or move it to Cafe Society…
Ah, heck with it.
</mod>
So, like: “Romeo, Romeo, why are you a Montague?”
Ain’t that easier to understand than “wherefore,” which people all think means “where” rather than “why”? And you got the cute li’l internal rhyme you/Montague, too.
The thing about Shakespeare isn’t the language in total, it’s just a word or two here or there, that’s no longer in use.
“Out, out, brief light bulb!” … naw, lacks something.
I agree. About time somebody improved all that language. We’ve known it’s the weak point of his plays for years.
Does West Side Story count? 
Nice!
You know, his plays really aren’t that hard to understand…
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Skinhead Hamlet. “Fuck off to a nunnery!”
I agree with Ezra Pound:
Anyone too lazy to acquire the elementary vocabulary required to understand Chaucer deserves to be shut off from the reading of good books, forever.
This is an order of magnitude truer for Shakespeare.
Hell, why stop there? Why not make Dickens more immediately comprehensible? Or Raymond Chandler?
Suffering Christ. :smack:
Only for satirical reasons. The beauty of Shakespeare isn’t in the plot, but in the words he uses.
It’s like asking why they don’t update operas, using the same librettos or story lines but with contemporary music – oh wait, they did that with Aida, didn’t they?.
The best way to read Shakespeare IS to read it without footnotes. After a while you simply pick up the idiom just like you would moving to a new town where they all talk just a bit differently.
You’ll never be able to translate all the allusions, references, jokes, and idioms, because those things are cultural, and culture changes faster than language. Shakespeare in contemporary English might be easier to read (it’s not all that hard to begin with), but you’ll still be missing things.
If you don’t like reading footnotes, just skip them; you don’t need to understand every single word. Shakespeare is just like The Simpsons. Very few people will catch all the references in any episode. I suppose you could “footnote” episodes, putting in subtitles that explain each reference and define the big words, but why? You can enjoy it without getting everything.
“Alex, I’ll take “Things I Thought I’d Never Hear” for $1000.”
Chaucer is harder, he’s writing in a different English. Try G. K. Chesteron’s CHAUCER, he spends a chapter on the difficulties (but need) to translate.
No argument there, but, it’s readable to modern English speakers who are willing to refer to a glossary, with little difficulty. Middle English is similar enough that entirely unfamiliar words are few and far between, and grammar isn’t a problem. Footnotes are helpful for context or subtle points.
Modern English “translations” of Chaucer always seem to fall short of the mark.
I mean, in most cases, all you have to do to is read it aloud:
The spelling has drifted, but that’s about it. A casual reader might have to look up “wiste,” if they are unable to work out its meaning from context. If you have a glossary, Chaucer is easy to read in the original language. It’s like reading anything else – you come across an unfamiliar word, you look it up: “‘Yclept?’ What the hell’s ‘yclept?’ Oh, okay. Onward!”
It hurts Chaucer to update the language for the self-same reason it hurts Shakespeare. (The first “translation” of this passage I ever read had it: “Before he knew what he had done, he had kissed her on the bum,” which has really coloured my view of whether or not it ought to be altered. Bleargh.)
Obviously, it’s sillier to update Shakespeare – but I think it’s better to hold onto classic texts and encourage people to make the tiny effort required to enjoy them. Footnotes are good.
Old English is something else again – most people don’t even recognize it as English, and it takes quite a bit more effort to learn to read it.
IMO, Shakespeare’s plays aren’t meant to be read like novels. They are, after all, plays. The printed versions of the plays are resources meant for the actors preparing to perform them. The footnotes are there to help the actors (especially modern-day actors without an extensive background in Shakespeare) understand the language inside and out; and they do need to understand the language inside and out.
Take, for example, As You Like It. In my experience, it’s not a very good read, and not all that funny in print. When performed by skilled actors who know the text thoroughly and have rehearsed the hell out of it, it’s not only very funny, but quite easy to understand. The problem is that there are a lot of bad Shakespeare performances out there in which the actors either get tripped up in the language, caught up in it, or don’t put in the necessary work. These performances are not only difficult to understand, but poorly acted and boring. A modern translation may make the printed text easier to understand, but it won’t save a play from unskilled or lazy actors.