'Bottom, thou art translated.'

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh dear, and they have the stamp of approval from the National Association for the Teaching of English. I suppose the teachers there think that poetry and metre and rhyme don't play any role in the art of reading.

And because they see it as an acceptable way of teaching Shakespeare they assume there's no problem - to me the fact that they see some kind of 'equivalence' speaks volumes about their own limitations. I recall a Minister in the Education Department some years back claiming Bob Dylan was a greater poet than Keats. Now, I think Dylan has produced some great songs, & is a gifted artist, but greater than Keats?? But then this attitude seems to be a commonplace - 'If Ithink Dylan is greater than Keats then Dylan is greater than Keats. If I think Eastenders is comparable to Lear then it is. If I think Shakespeare needs bringing up to the standard of Spiderman, then lets get the comic book writers to 'adapt' the stories'. Someone should tell

Ian McNeilly, director of the National Association for the Teaching of English

he needs educating. This is dumbing Shakespeare down to the level of the lowest common denominator & telling kids who read the 'quick' versions that they've read Shakespeare. In reality, its not 'Shakespeare' at all, in any way, shape or form.

Actually, a few years back the BBC produced some animated versions of Shakespeare's plays, using narration & original text, which would serve far better as introductions:
Hamlet http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sFDb8S...elated&search=
The Tempest http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7SeJza...elated&search=
(They also produced adaptations of The Canterbury Tales, btw)