ANd then I found this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Now, I can actually see that this kind of (very) simplified 'primer' might be of some use in getting across the basics of the stories for those with no knowledge of the plays, but I can't see that these 'translations' have any real value beyond that. But I wonder how similar these 'translations' of Shakepeare are to some of the modern translations of Tolkien? Now, admittedly, there are versions of these comics which use the original language, but what really annoyed me was the 'Peter Jackson-ish' approach of Clive Bryant, Chairman of the company behind the project:
Quote:
|
"We want to make Shakespeare as energetic and colourful as Spiderman" he told the Times Educational Supplement.
|
I've heard some trendy producers claim that if Shakespeare were around today he'd be writing scripts for Eastenders (a badly written soap opera about depressed Cockerney's going to the pub & having fights among the market stalls) but the idea that if he was around now he'd be writing superhero comics takes the biscuit. Surely Shakespeare plays a few divisions above Stan Lee? Or am I wrong - do the 'boring' plays of W.S. have to be
raised up to the level of our friendly neighbourhood web-slinger?
As an aside, I can't help but compare the quality of illustrations in these editions with the work of illustrators like Walter Crane (Faerie Queene), Gustave Dore (Paradise Lost) & Aubrey Beardsley (Morte d'Arthur). Thwack! Crump! Aaargh!