Looking ahead to the rest of 2014

[Laurel]

I pray thee, change not a word of the Bard! Charles is straight on.

[[deleted user]]

Amidst the discussion of "updating" Shakespeare's language, one point should not be missed. Part of the fun of reading Shakespeare in the original text is to discover how many of the "modern" words we take for granted were first used by him. As we've used them over the centuries some of their meaning has diluted. It can be bracing to encounter them in their fresh, often metaphorical, context.

[Nemo]

Laurele wrote: "I Prather, change not a word of the Bard!"

Wow, now I see why many believe the Quran must not and cannot be translated into another language. :)

[[deleted user]]

Along with the issue of the meaning of the words in Shakespeare's Early Modern English, comes an issue of pronunciation and how it affects meaning. Here is an interesting article with examples:

http://www.openculture.com/2013/09/wh...

For what it is worth, my understanding is that Shakespeare's English sounded much more like what became an American accent than it did like BBC English.

[Cass]

Zeke wrote: "Amidst the discussion of "updating" Shakespeare's language, one point should not be missed. Part of the fun of reading Shakespeare in the original text is to discover how many of the "modern" words..."

I agree and that is my question.. I do want to say that I am not suggesting 'updating' I am suggesting 'translating'. My point is that it is almost a different language (it is a very different dialect), and it is an unusual thing (in modern times) to expect a person to learn a language in order to read a text. Typically we translate the text, however with these old dialects we expect people to learn the language.

I am arguing that (or at least posing the question that) this is not without fault. No one studies the language before reading in the same way that, for example, I am studying french so that I can read french authors.

[Charles]

Cass wrote: " No one studies the language before reading in the same way that, for example, I am studying french so that I can read french authors. "

This is too simple. You can't, for example, read Joyce with the skills used to read Jane Austen (or the reverse, I note of myself). I see no problem with a crib (or a dictionary embedded in the annotations). But any discussions we will have about the text will have to be about what was written, not some approximation. This is the point about so much scholarship on the texts and their transmission. The longest version of Hamlet is very difficult to stage because it is so long. Branagh did it, but it was a stretch. There are shorter versions. Which was actually performed in Shakespeare'time? We care about these things because we want to experience the plays, to the degree that we can, as when they were new.

[Everyman]

Cass wrote: "Can you explain how they all differ.

It is not a modern translation is it? Or is it the footnotes, or the test-type/layout. What makes one different to another?

(I admit to ordering wordsworth ed..."

It is a number of factors. In the Simply Shakespeare set you have both the original text and modern translation on facing pages, but otherwise they're all pretty much the same text. The differences for me are in the amount of supplemental material, the quality of the introductions, whether the notes are marginal or footnotes (I find marginal easier to work with, but footnotes better when I know a text fairly well and so don't need to consult very many of the footnotes, and I find that a page which is more than half footnotes is giving too much detail), and then for me, the feel of the book in the hand and how easy and comfortable it is to read (do the pages open mostly lying flat, or do they only open to about 90 degrees so you have to read into the gutter all the time).

With any reasonably good edition, it's really more personal preferences more than anything else.

[Everyman]

Zeke wrote: "I am not a fane of the No Fear editions. From their very premise --that Shakespeare is something to "fear"-- I think they dumb down the plays. They reproduce on facing pages a modern language vers..."

I agree for anybody who has read a few plays and can figure out how to enjoy reading them. But for students approaching the plays for the first time, who may never have read anything other than modern usage. Up to about a century ago, almost everybody had read, or had hear in church, the King James Bible, so Shakespeare's language was not a foreign tongue to them. But to today's teenagers, it's almost a foreign language, so I think the No Fear or Simply Shakespeare editions have a place easing younger readers into S.

[Cass]

Charles wrote: "Cass wrote: " No one studies the language before reading in the same way that, for example, I am studying french so that I can read french authors. "

This is too simple. You can't, for example, re..."

I am talking only about knowledge of the language that the work is written in, not understanding of the work.

I am also not arguing seriously for or against, just interested in the linguistical discussion.

[Charles]

Cass wrote: "I am also not arguing seriously for or against, just interested in the linguistical discussion."

Yes, I think I've over-extended my original remark, which was only a plea not to disregard the original language. Put to one side the rest of it.

[Nemo]

Re. Shakespare's originality

Zeke mentioned that only two of Shakespeare's plays are original, Tempest and Merry Wives of Windsor. Charles followed up and said that the Tempest isn't original either.

I'm curious whether someone has done a comprehensive study of the plays, the narrative materials, from which Shakespeare might have derived or originated his own works?

[[deleted user]]

Here are a couple I found using google. Can't vouch for them, but they are interesting. With suggestions that others (e.g. Love's Labours Lost) are also original.

http://www.shakespeare-w.com/english/...

http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Li...

[Everyman]

Nemo wrote: "I'm curious whether someone has done a comprehensive study of the plays, the narrative materials, from which Shakespeare might have derived or originated his own works? "

Many people have. There are volumes after volumes on just this question. Some of his sources are obvious -- Holingshead for much of his history, Ovid for many of the Italian and Greek plays. There is a volume we discussed some time back, the title of which I can't recall, which is specifically on Shakespeare and Ovid.

Actually, there is very little about the Shakespeare texts which hasn't been analyzed over and over. Which makes it all the more interesting that there remain myriad interpretations of him, and that every theatrical production of him is different in at least some ways from any that came before or will come after.

[Nemo]

Zeke wrote: "Here are a couple I found using google. Can't vouch for them, but they are interesting. With suggestions that others (e.g. Love's Labours Lost) are also original.

http://www.shakespeare-w.com/engl..."

Thanks for the links, Zeke. The first one provides two references which may be useful.

Bullough, Geoffery. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare. 8 Vols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967-75.
Muir, Kenneth. The Sources of Shakespeare Plays. London: Methuen, 1977.

As a newcomer to Shakespeare, I have more than enough reading materials to get a head start before the holiday group read.

[Kaitlyn]

I'm really looking forward to tackling Shakespeare's tetralogy! I don't think I'll have time for The Golden Ass, but I'm definitely going to fit this into my schedule.

[Everyman]

Kaitlyn wrote: "I'm really looking forward to tackling Shakespeare's tetralogy! I don't think I'll have time for The Golden Ass, but I'm definitely going to fit this into my schedule."

The Golden Ass is actually fairly short, especially at the pace we're taking it, and not all that time consuming. But if not, we'll be happy to see you for Shakespeare.

[Theresa]

It is not time consuming once you settle on one translation. I guess you can spend as much or as little time on it as you are inclined to do.

[Nicola]

It's also quite a 'dippable' book because there are so many stories which are asides to the main plot. You can just read them as totally separate stories and, barring Cupid and Psyche, they are quite short.

[Theresa]

I was thinking to buy the PBS/BBC series "The Hollow Crown". I saw a bit of the final one on TV last year. I wonder how true they are to the Shakespeare plays?

[Dee]

I recorded The Hollow Crown when it was broadcast on the BBC, but never got round to watching the series. Will have to look them out. In general, the BBC Shakespeare adaptations are very well done.

[Pip]

Theresa wrote: "I was thinking to buy the PBS/BBC series "The Hollow Crown". I saw a bit of the final one on TV last year. I wonder how true they are to the Shakespeare plays?"

Although not strictly faithful to Shakespeare, the Hollow Crown Richard II is outstanding. Ben Whishaw plays what I think could be a defining Richard and all the supporting actors are very strong.

For anybody unfamiliar with the play - or Shakespeare full stop - this is an excellent way in, particularly if you take advantage of the subtitles ;-)) Far from the usual declaiming of lines, the dialogue is flowing and natural-sounding, almost like modern speech, but without losing the poetry. So - very highly recommended!

I'm very much looking forward to discussing this play with you all.

"For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings"

[Thomas]

Theresa wrote: "I was thinking to buy the PBS/BBC series "The Hollow Crown". I saw a bit of the final one on TV last year. I wonder how true they are to the Shakespeare plays?"

I quite enjoyed "The Hollow Crown," but parts of the plays are abridged, so beware of that. The BBC Television productions from the 70's and 80's are also very good.

[[deleted user]]

I agree that the Hollow Crown is a good way to experience the plays even though it is abridged and, in my opinion, over dramatized. I am not sure which BBC versions Thomas is referring to. The BBC did a series of all the plays. Unfortunately, needing to appeal to the broadest audience possible, many of them are pretty tame stuff. (I can't recall the history plays specifically.)

However, there was a BBC production around the '70s called An Age of Kings. I thought it was outstanding. They cut the plays into segments and gave them different titles, but I think they were faithful to the texts. They are in black and white and don't have the fancy effects of The Hollow Crown but, for me, that is not a disadvantage.

[Thomas]

Zeke wrote: "I agree that the Hollow Crown is a good way to experience the plays even though it is abridged and, in my opinion, over dramatized. I am not sure which BBC versions Thomas is referring to. The BBC ..."

These are the ones I'm thinking of --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Tele...

I guess I like them because they're the ones I first saw when I started to learn about Shakespeare. Whether they are any good or not I should leave to those who know better.

Speaking of those who know better -- Zeke, how do you feel about Chimes at Midnight? (This is the Orson Welles adaptation of the Henriad, sort of...) A friend has been recommending it to me for years.

[[deleted user]]

@75 from Thomas: Yes Thomas. Those are different from Age of Kings. I think you would like it.

I love Chimes at Midnight. It is totally an adaptation (so not for someone trying to learn the plays) and a vehicle for Orson Welles as Falstaff. It uses text from several plays and has narration, by Ralph Richardson, from Hollinshead.

It takes its title from the penultimate line of an amazing scene where Falstaff and one of the running mates from his youth are reminiscing on the passage of time:

Falstaff. Come, I will go drink with you, but I cannot tarry dinner. I am glad to see you, by my troth, Master Shallow.

Robert Shallow. O, Sir John, do you remember since we lay all night in windmill in Saint George's Field?

Falstaff. No more of that, Master Shallow, no more of that.

Robert Shallow. Ha, 'twas a merry night. And is Jane Nightwork alive?

Falstaff. She lives, Master Shallow.

Robert Shallow. She never could away with me.

Falstaff. Never, never; she would always say she could not Master Shallow.

Robert Shallow. By the mass, I could anger her to th'heart. She was a bona-roba. Doth she hold her own well?

Falstaff. Old, old, Master Shallow.

Robert Shallow. Nay, she must be old; she cannot choose but be old; certain she's old; and had Robin Nightwork, by old Nightwork, before I came to Clement's Inn.

Silence. That's fifty-five year ago.

Robert Shallow. Ha, cousin Silence, that thou hadst seen that that knight and I have seen! Ha, Sir John, said I well?

Falstaff. We have heard the chimes at midnight, Master Shallow.

Robert Shallow. That we have, that we have, that we have; in faith, John, we have. Our watchword was 'Hem, boys!' Come, let's to dinner; come, let's to dinner. Jesus, the days that we have Come, come.

Henry IV Part II Act 3 Scene 2

I'd urge Thomas, or anyone, to search these old films out.

[Everyman]

Zeke wrote: "I agree that the Hollow Crown is a good way to experience the plays even though it is abridged and, in my opinion, over dramatized...."

I watched part of it, and did find the over-dramatization a bit offputting. But I'm a well known curmudgeon when it comes to productions that mess too much with the original.

[Everyman]

Our library has video set titled "Playing Shakespeare," which is based on a television series of John Barton, of the Royal Shakespeare Company and a wide range of RSC actors working up various scenes from the plays, trying them this way and that way, debating what how they might (not should, there is no should in acting Shakespeare) be played. I found it quite interesting, and in fact am going to borrow it again to view before our holiday excursion.

If your library doesn't have it, I'm sure they could get it on Interlibrary Loan. Though I realize in suggesting that that many libraries charge for using ILL. (Ours doesn't; since we are a remote community with no other library reasonably accessible, the library has accepted that getting ILL materials is central to their mission.)

[Lily]

Everyman wrote: "But I'm a well known curmudgeon when it comes to productions that mess too much with the original...."

there is no should in acting Shakespeare

Eman -- Do these mean the staging/production is where you are a stickler, but acting is wide open to interpretation?

[Everyman]

Lily wrote: "Eman -- Do these mean the staging/production is where you are a stickler, but acting is wide open to interpretation? "

Pretty much, yes. I suppose there is some acting I could object to, but my basic spite is reserved for directors and producers who can't just let Shakespeare be Shakespeare, but need to mess with him to show how clever they can be. As, for a few examples, modern dress productions, setting plays in Nazi Germany, staging absurdities like bicycles on stage in a Midsummer Night's Dream, etc.

I have, slightly reluctantly, accepted female roles being played by women rather than boys, but beyond that, basically if it couldn't have been done on the stage of the Globe theater, it shouldn't be done now.

[Dee]

Everyman wrote: "there is no should in acting Shakespeare"

But there is plenty of Should not.

[Dee]

Everyman wrote: "I suppose there is some acting I could object to, but my basic spite is reserved for directors and producers who can't just let Shakespeare be Shakespeare, but need to mess with him to show how clever they can be."

How do you feel about Anne Carson's Antigonick? Despite its strange name, it is billed as a translation of Sophokles (her spelling). It begins with Antigone and Ismene discussing Beckett and Hegel. I've not read the whole thing, but the book is beautiful.

[Pip]

Everyman, I do understand your reasons, but I can't agree with you that " if it couldn't have been done on the stage of the Globe theater, it shouldn't be done now".

I don't believe that a dramatist as innovative as Shakespeare would not have used today's techniques if he'd had them at his disposal. In his day, trapdoors, harnesses, fireworks and cannon were all used to enhance his plays. And from a literary point of view, the soliloquy, used as a means of hearing the characters' minds, was innovative.

Of course it is fascinating to see plays performed "as they would have been", but I don't think that necessarily means "as they should be". I have had the same argument with musical purists who believe we should all be listening to extra scratchy strings because that's what was around when the music was written.

[Everyman]

David wrote: "How do you feel about Anne Carson's Antigonick?"

I don't know it. But basically I think people should respect other authors' work and leave it alone, and go do their own creative work. Translations, yes, those are necessary and valuable. But having Sophocles's characters discuss Beckett is an abuse of Sophocles.

Carson wouldn't like it if I did it to her, so she shouldn't do it to anybody else.

[Thomas]

Everyman wrote: "David wrote: "How do you feel about Anne Carson's Antigonick?"

I don't know it. But basically I think people should respect other authors' work and leave it alone, and go do their own creative wo..."

Why does she call it a "translation" when it isn't? It's a poetic commentary more than a translation, and while it's quite good for what it is, it isn't what Sophocles wrote. Poetic license doesn't bother me, but selling the work as true to the original, by calling it a translation, does.

[Charles]

Pip wrote: "Everyman, I do understand your reasons, but I can't agree with you that " if it couldn't have been done on the stage of the Globe theater, it shouldn't be done now"

In view of this, and of earlier remarks about female roles being played by boys, I must mischievously ask: What do you think of Helen Mirren's Prospero?

[Pip]

Charles, I haven't seen it, but I imagine if anyone is going to carry off the part of "Prospera", it would be Helen Mirren.

My view more generally on changing the gender of a character is that it depends on the director's reasons for doing so. I understand that Julie Taymor chose to cast Prospero as a woman because she couldn't think of a better actor (in the non-gender-specific sense) to play the part. I can't remember my Tempest well enough to consider how casting a woman might a) change the story or b) alter our views of the play's messages and themes, but I don't think the language would have suffered too much.

Sometimes directors make changes which are intended to challenge our beliefs and preconceptions, and although I don't think this was the case in Taymor's The Tempest, I have much less of a problem with that than, for example, adaptations of novels which change the story. That really does irk me.

So could you cast Othello (or Othella?!) as a white person? Yes of course, if you reverse it properly and all the other characters were black. That would certainly make me, as a white person living in a largely white community, think more carefully about how it must feel to be different.

And on the subject of Othello.... I wonder what Everyman thinks about black actors playing the title role? Or should it be done as they did it at The Globe - a white man blacked up? Now that IS mischievous ;-)

[Charles]

Pip wrote: "Charles, I haven't seen it, but I imagine if anyone is going to carry off the part of "Prospera", it would be Helen Mirren."

An interesting case is that of Caliban in The Tempest. Caliban is supposed to be a "savage" and is tied to the changing cultural concept of what that is. In the 19th century the role was available to Native Americans, but they lost it to African Americans. Of course, it has always been available to whites. White people can play Othello. The famous actors of the previous generation all did.

[Nicola]

Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "Eman -- Do these mean the staging/production is where you are a stickler, but acting is wide open to interpretation? "

Pretty much, yes. I suppose there is some acting I could object..."

Oh no non no non no!

I am aware there are such purists but I can't see what you are being so purist 'about'!? Shakespeare (I am convinced) would caper with delight could he somehow see the way his plays are being still performed today. Sometimes traditionally, most times not.

The man wanted to entertain, wanted fame and fortune and used his talents to do all that.

I love Shakespeare any which way; so long as the magic of the words still hold me.

[Everyman]

Charles wrote: "In view of this, and of earlier remarks about female roles being played by boys, I must mischievously ask: What do you think of Helen Mirren's Prospero? "

Well, I haven't seen it, so can't say.

But I did once see Love's Labor Lost at Vassar College when it was still a women's college and so the cast was all female. I quite enjoyed it.

[Theresa]

Everyman wrote: "Charles wrote: "In view of this, and of earlier remarks about female roles being played by boys, I must mischievously ask: What do you think of Helen Mirren's Prospero? "

Well, I haven't seen it, ..."


I saw it, and as I recall, I found it rather odd. I've read very few of Shakespeares plays (compared to others here), I didn't know the story or that the main character was usually portrayed as male. All I can say is that it was curious, and somehow not as witty or as mentally engaging as I have experienced Shakespeare to be. To be sure, I am not the biggest fan of Shakespeare, I have nothing against him, but he doesn't pull me back to want to read more of his plays.

So, that is my uneducated answer.

[Dee]

I've not read much Shakespeare (and about to get myself thrown out of the group for admitting that) but of those I have read, Hamlet is a clear favourite, but I would say The Tempest is my second after that.

Really looking forward to the upcoming reading, as the only play of the Tetralogy I've read is Henry V

[Theresa]

I liked King Lear best, but I suspect that the plays we will be reading will become my favorites. I enjoy reading about history.

[Everyman]

Theresa wrote: "I liked King Lear best, but I suspect that the plays we will be reading will become my favorites. I enjoy reading about history."

I intend to stick a comment in the Henriad forum noting that one shouldn't rely on Shakespeare for historical accuracy; he plays fast and loose with many details of history when it suits his dramatic needs. For just one, in Henry IV Shakespeare suggests that Prince Hal and Hotspur are about the same age, whereas in fact Hotspur was, if memory serves, more than 20 years older.

Anyhow, that's for later, but I since you commented on reading about history, don't take S to be an accurate historian! The outlines of his history are usually good, and he does get many relationships and events right, but by no means all.

[Melora]

There! Just ordered my Arden King Richard II (almost went with Oxford, but Arden has a larger font for footnotes, which I appreciate!), so now I'm ready to go! I don't think I've read Any of Shakespeare's histories before (but my daughter and I watched The Hollow Crown, and also the recent Richard II with David Tennant, and really enjoyed them), so I'm very excited!

[[deleted user]]

Regarding the Helen Mirren Tempest film. I saw it and was disappointed. This surprised me as I like Helen Mirren and The Tempest both. I think the effort to make Prospero into Prospera was mostly forced. However, it did create some interesting new dynamics as the relationship became mother/daughter rather than father/daughter; unfortunately, in my opinion, this was also a less interesting relationship.

I disagree with the professor who denigrated The Tempest. Far from "running out of steam" Shakespeare has given us a powerful look at several themes. In addition to the father trying to shield his daughter from the world (think Verdi's Rigoletto for another example of how this never works out well), there are the themes of magical power renunciated, forgiveness practiced, and colonialism explored. Quite a lot for someone who has "run out of steam."

One reason some people think The Tempest is Shakespeare's valedictory is a speech Prospero gives in Act IV of the play. I am quoting here for any of our members who may not know the play. It's a nice little teaser for the poetry of his earlier Richard II that we are about to enjoy.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep. Sir, I am vex'd;
Bear with my weakness; my, brain is troubled:
Be not disturb'd with my infirmity:
If you be pleased, retire into my cell
And there repose: a turn or two I'll walk,
To still my beating mind.

[Pip]

Patrice wrote: "Thanks Zeke. We are such stuff as dreams are made on. I love that line.
A few years ago we went to an outdoor theatre in Wisconsin to see The Tempest. We sat in our seats and the rain started ..."

I can just imagine the collective intake of breath. It must have been incredible, a truly magical moment!

[Laurel]

Magical!

[Everyman]

Laurele wrote: "Magical!"

But we hope that it wasn't the sort of magic that turned audience members into asses!

[Mike]

Already prepared to comment on why John of Gaunt was a manipulative scumbag. :)