7 ms·

I have heard that Shakespeare is much easier and more enjoyable for non-English speakers, because they get modern translations and we do not Linguist John McWh

I have heard that Shakespeare is much easier and more enjoyable for non-English speakers, because they get modern translations and we do not Linguist John McWhorter says that Shakespeare is often an "the Emperor has no clothes" situation. No one wants to admit to themselves or others that they don't understand it, and the people who think they understand it are often misunderstanding a lot of it

LPisGood 27d ago
Now, maybe I was convincing myself that I understood in high school when I’ve in fact it not, but I found that reading it aloud and trying to say the words, as if you were the character (acting, if you will), made it much more understandable.
- PsylentKnight 27d ago
  I mean, even the most famous line in all of Shakespeare, "wherefore art thou Romeo" is frequently misunderstood because many people reasonably assume "wherefore" means something like "where". Yes, you can figure it out from context, but the context is in the same archaic language. Very possible to untangle all that while you're reading it and perhaps it's a good mental exercise. But it can be really tough to keep up when you're watching in the form it was meant to be enjoyed in, a play
  - schoen 27d ago
    That speech is expressing an awesome idea: Juliet is saying that she loves Romeo-the-person, but she is terrified of her bad luck in that he happens to have a certain surname ("Montague") which will automatically cause her family to hate him. Which, indeed, they do. It's basically something like "why did I fall in love with such an inconvenient person?", together with "why does my family care so much about this thing that I'm not sure needs to matter?".
    - PsylentKnight 27d ago
      Sure, but the archaic language can obscure the awesome idea. "Why are you Romeo?" may sound less poetic to modern ears, but isn't that how people back then would have parsed it - just as easily as everyday language, because it was their everyday language? I feel like in a way we're losing Shakespeare's intended effect, because we insist on using a "language" that isn't used anymore. Yes, I understand that it's considered the same language, but a language isn't really one thing, it's more of a spectrum without sharp edges. Shakespeare is much closer in time to Middle English (which is considered a different language) than he is to our time
      - TheOtherHobbes 27d ago
        True, but a big part of Shakespeare is the rhythm, and if you replace the words with newer words that disappears. Not to say it will be a complete failure, but it does lose some of its poetry and power. And smut. There's a lot of smut and double entendre in Shakespeare. An innocent modern word like "nothing" has multiple layers of meaning in Elizabethan English. Modern audiences don't get it unless someone explains it to them.
        eszed 27d ago
        > unless someone explains it to them Yeah, that helps. But attending a performance by a company that thoroughly understands it themselves is a massive shortcut. Sure, you'll still not be able to define every word, but they'll give you all the context you need to "get" enough to enjoy the show. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the poetry. In fact, being aware of that level is essential to really understanding the plays. I'm sure you're aware of this, but for the peanut gallery: when Romeo and Juliet meet, their first words to each other are a mf-ing sonnet. They're so in tune with each other that they complete each other's thoughts and (within the world of the play) extemporize a whole poem. And it's good - totally witty and flirtatious, and just... Yeah. You want to talk about two people made for each other? That's them. Which, of course, sets up the whole tragedy of the rest of the show. Good actors will make you feel that, but it hits harder if you recognize the sonnet as it goes by.
      - 27d ago
krige 27d ago
Well yeah. Look no further than the "brevity is the soul of wit" quote. It's taken at literal value when, in context, you know it's a joke, a potshot at the expense of the character saying it, who's anything but brief in speech.
- fluoridation 27d ago
  It sounds like it's still meant in earnest, then. That it's a self-deprecating joke doesn't detract from the sentiment.
  - bluGill 27d ago
    I know a fair number long winded people who like that quote and have no clue it should apply to them despite repeating it often.
  - eszed 27d ago
    It's totally in earnest, and it's funny because Polonius isn't being self-deprecating: he wholeheartedly believes in brevity, when he isn't being it. At all. But, Shakespeare being Shakespeare, he's not being entirely poked fun at. He's saying goodbye to his son, who's headed off into adulthood, and his over-long list of life-advice is like his last chance to to be a loving father. It's a "yeah, dad" moment, but Polonius is ever so slightly desperate to impart all the lessons that maybe he never quite got around to teaching quite as well as he wishes he had, and he's just ever so slightly desperate, and totally not ready to say goodbye, and it's... Really, really relatable. Though maybe not to high school students, I guess. I think it's still worthwhile for them to try.
hylaride 27d ago
It's a tragedy that most English classes don't have field trips. Going to an actual Shakespeare play would probably change many people's minds than having to direct it in book form. What clicked for me was after being forced to read The Merchant of Venice in grade 9, I suddenly saw all the cultural references ("I want my pound of flesh" or "All that glisters is not gold") in movies, music, etc. I remember watching Strange Brew and somebody mentioned that it's basically Hamlet and you can't unsee it once you realize which movie character is matched to which Shakespeare character. Over the years I've been to several adaptations of A Midsummer Night's Dream and it was a ton of fun every single time.
dd8601fn 27d ago
We often didn’t just get sent home with a copy of Romeo and Juliet and then get asked to write an essay. We went through it, a bit at a time, in class. With a very good teacher. Not just helping with word and phrases, but digging in a little bit. And at the end we watched a performance of it. I think that made it so much easier to appreciate, and it made it a ton easier to read and appreciate Julius Caesar or whichever ones we did next. And like… that was 30+ years ago for me, but I feel like I see echoes of that stuff all the time.
thadt 27d ago
This is a really good point. My wife and I produce a history podcast where, right now, a lot of it draws on primary sources such as letters, diaries, etc. from the late 1800's to early 1900's. The ones in German she translates into English, but it feels "wrong" to change someone's words that are already in English. The net result is that it's easier (for me) to understand a letter written by someone in a translated foreign language than one written by someone in English from the same period.
- sebg 27d ago
  What’s been your favorite episode to put together?
  - thadt 27d ago
    It's hard to pick a favorite - everyone brings their own perspective to their time. One of my early favorites was 'A Jew Who Stood Guard for Hitler'[1], the account of a kid who joined the Nazis for a while - till they found out he was Jewish and kicked him out. Ah, the naivety of youth. [1] https://www.messyhistory.net/a-jew-who-stood-guard-for-hitler https://www.messyhistory.net/a-jew-who-stood-guard-for-hitle...
folkrav 27d ago
I was preparing to heavily disagree with you before that "because". I'm French speaking, one of my highschool English teachers made us read Romeo and Juliet, and it's different enough from modern English that my brain just couldn't understand anything at all. Thank god Sparknotes already existed in the early/mid 00s cause I would have fluked that class so hard. Funnily enough I never read the translations, so can't speak as to how accurate your affirmation is, but I can see it happening for sure. I'd say it depends on the style of the translation. I've seen some try too hard to preserve the tone of the original.
inglor_cz 27d ago
[dead]

LPisGood 27d ago

Now, maybe I was convincing myself that I understood in high school when I’ve in fact it not, but I found that reading it aloud and trying to say the words, as if you were the character (acting, if you will), made it much more understandable.

PsylentKnight 27d ago
I mean, even the most famous line in all of Shakespeare, "wherefore art thou Romeo" is frequently misunderstood because many people reasonably assume "wherefore" means something like "where". Yes, you can figure it out from context, but the context is in the same archaic language. Very possible to untangle all that while you're reading it and perhaps it's a good mental exercise. But it can be really tough to keep up when you're watching in the form it was meant to be enjoyed in, a play
- schoen 27d ago
  That speech is expressing an awesome idea: Juliet is saying that she loves Romeo-the-person, but she is terrified of her bad luck in that he happens to have a certain surname ("Montague") which will automatically cause her family to hate him. Which, indeed, they do. It's basically something like "why did I fall in love with such an inconvenient person?", together with "why does my family care so much about this thing that I'm not sure needs to matter?".
  - PsylentKnight 27d ago
    Sure, but the archaic language can obscure the awesome idea. "Why are you Romeo?" may sound less poetic to modern ears, but isn't that how people back then would have parsed it - just as easily as everyday language, because it was their everyday language? I feel like in a way we're losing Shakespeare's intended effect, because we insist on using a "language" that isn't used anymore. Yes, I understand that it's considered the same language, but a language isn't really one thing, it's more of a spectrum without sharp edges. Shakespeare is much closer in time to Middle English (which is considered a different language) than he is to our time
    - TheOtherHobbes 27d ago
      True, but a big part of Shakespeare is the rhythm, and if you replace the words with newer words that disappears. Not to say it will be a complete failure, but it does lose some of its poetry and power. And smut. There's a lot of smut and double entendre in Shakespeare. An innocent modern word like "nothing" has multiple layers of meaning in Elizabethan English. Modern audiences don't get it unless someone explains it to them.
      - eszed 27d ago
        > unless someone explains it to them Yeah, that helps. But attending a performance by a company that thoroughly understands it themselves is a massive shortcut. Sure, you'll still not be able to define every word, but they'll give you all the context you need to "get" enough to enjoy the show. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the poetry. In fact, being aware of that level is essential to really understanding the plays. I'm sure you're aware of this, but for the peanut gallery: when Romeo and Juliet meet, their first words to each other are a mf-ing sonnet. They're so in tune with each other that they complete each other's thoughts and (within the world of the play) extemporize a whole poem. And it's good - totally witty and flirtatious, and just... Yeah. You want to talk about two people made for each other? That's them. Which, of course, sets up the whole tragedy of the rest of the show. Good actors will make you feel that, but it hits harder if you recognize the sonnet as it goes by.
    - 27d ago

krige 27d ago

Well yeah. Look no further than the "brevity is the soul of wit" quote. It's taken at literal value when, in context, you know it's a joke, a potshot at the expense of the character saying it, who's anything but brief in speech.

fluoridation 27d ago
It sounds like it's still meant in earnest, then. That it's a self-deprecating joke doesn't detract from the sentiment.
- bluGill 27d ago
  I know a fair number long winded people who like that quote and have no clue it should apply to them despite repeating it often.
- eszed 27d ago
  It's totally in earnest, and it's funny because Polonius isn't being self-deprecating: he wholeheartedly believes in brevity, when he isn't being it. At all. But, Shakespeare being Shakespeare, he's not being entirely poked fun at. He's saying goodbye to his son, who's headed off into adulthood, and his over-long list of life-advice is like his last chance to to be a loving father. It's a "yeah, dad" moment, but Polonius is ever so slightly desperate to impart all the lessons that maybe he never quite got around to teaching quite as well as he wishes he had, and he's just ever so slightly desperate, and totally not ready to say goodbye, and it's... Really, really relatable. Though maybe not to high school students, I guess. I think it's still worthwhile for them to try.

hylaride 27d ago

It's a tragedy that most English classes don't have field trips. Going to an actual Shakespeare play would probably change many people's minds than having to direct it in book form. What clicked for me was after being forced to read The Merchant of Venice in grade 9, I suddenly saw all the cultural references ("I want my pound of flesh" or "All that glisters is not gold") in movies, music, etc. I remember watching Strange Brew and somebody mentioned that it's basically Hamlet and you can't unsee it once you realize which movie character is matched to which Shakespeare character. Over the years I've been to several adaptations of A Midsummer Night's Dream and it was a ton of fun every single time.

dd8601fn 27d ago

We often didn’t just get sent home with a copy of Romeo and Juliet and then get asked to write an essay. We went through it, a bit at a time, in class. With a very good teacher. Not just helping with word and phrases, but digging in a little bit. And at the end we watched a performance of it. I think that made it so much easier to appreciate, and it made it a ton easier to read and appreciate Julius Caesar or whichever ones we did next. And like… that was 30+ years ago for me, but I feel like I see echoes of that stuff all the time.

thadt 27d ago

This is a really good point. My wife and I produce a history podcast where, right now, a lot of it draws on primary sources such as letters, diaries, etc. from the late 1800's to early 1900's. The ones in German she translates into English, but it feels "wrong" to change someone's words that are already in English. The net result is that it's easier (for me) to understand a letter written by someone in a translated foreign language than one written by someone in English from the same period.

sebg 27d ago
What’s been your favorite episode to put together?
- thadt 27d ago
  It's hard to pick a favorite - everyone brings their own perspective to their time. One of my early favorites was 'A Jew Who Stood Guard for Hitler'[1], the account of a kid who joined the Nazis for a while - till they found out he was Jewish and kicked him out. Ah, the naivety of youth. [1] https://www.messyhistory.net/a-jew-who-stood-guard-for-hitler https://www.messyhistory.net/a-jew-who-stood-guard-for-hitle...

folkrav 27d ago

I was preparing to heavily disagree with you before that "because". I'm French speaking, one of my highschool English teachers made us read Romeo and Juliet, and it's different enough from modern English that my brain just couldn't understand anything at all. Thank god Sparknotes already existed in the early/mid 00s cause I would have fluked that class so hard. Funnily enough I never read the translations, so can't speak as to how accurate your affirmation is, but I can see it happening for sure. I'd say it depends on the style of the translation. I've seen some try too hard to preserve the tone of the original.

inglor_cz 27d ago

[dead]