5 ms·

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 wou

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.
cwnyth 27d ago
I disagree. Shakespeare was not "plain" even in the 16/17th century. It wasn't archaic, but it was far, far from plain. The same is true for a lot of great literary works, even recent ones. Many great works have a lofty diction, which is easy to lampoon when inferior works veer into purple prose, but when it works, really elevates language.
- PsylentKnight 27d ago
  True. But I think you can agree that the (now) archaic language and cultural context that would have been common knowledge back then gives an extra layer of difficulty over the already poetic/literary nature of the work Watching Shakespeare has a similar feel to me as watching cartoons in Spanish as an intermediate Spanish learner. I can understand a lot of it. But I have to use so much of my brain power interpreting the language and get so distracted by unfamiliar phrases or words that I can't really get immersed in the story I don't know, I guess it's just not for me. I think the 1700/1800's are about as far back as I can go
  - cwnyth 26d ago
    Yes, no disagreement there. Some things would have been more commonly said or just common knowledge, but I only wanted to push back on the idea that Shakespeare's writing was just how people talked back then.
epihelix 27d ago
Well, "[Romeo], why are you Romeo?" would not work, as it's not iambic pentameter. It is literally not poetic, no matter whose ears are hearing it. Much of Shakespeare is written in poetry, not prose, and that format engenders rare and archaic word use even today.

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.

cwnyth 27d ago

I disagree. Shakespeare was not "plain" even in the 16/17th century. It wasn't archaic, but it was far, far from plain. The same is true for a lot of great literary works, even recent ones. Many great works have a lofty diction, which is easy to lampoon when inferior works veer into purple prose, but when it works, really elevates language.

PsylentKnight 27d ago
True. But I think you can agree that the (now) archaic language and cultural context that would have been common knowledge back then gives an extra layer of difficulty over the already poetic/literary nature of the work Watching Shakespeare has a similar feel to me as watching cartoons in Spanish as an intermediate Spanish learner. I can understand a lot of it. But I have to use so much of my brain power interpreting the language and get so distracted by unfamiliar phrases or words that I can't really get immersed in the story I don't know, I guess it's just not for me. I think the 1700/1800's are about as far back as I can go
- cwnyth 26d ago
  Yes, no disagreement there. Some things would have been more commonly said or just common knowledge, but I only wanted to push back on the idea that Shakespeare's writing was just how people talked back then.

epihelix 27d ago

Well, "[Romeo], why are you Romeo?" would not work, as it's not iambic pentameter. It is literally not poetic, no matter whose ears are hearing it. Much of Shakespeare is written in poetry, not prose, and that format engenders rare and archaic word use even today.