'Bottom, thou art translated.'

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I know you're just trying to be clever so I don't expect you to explain how that might follow from Shakespeare comics.

They aren't 'Shakespeare' comics. The 'quick' versions contain nothing of Shakespeare's poetry, & the full versions, which contain the original text, are redundant. And the 'art' is terrible....

a comic book used to spark an interest in Shakespeare is better than ignoring him altogether, whether deliberately through curriculum, or through the kids' lack of interest.

Oh, believe me, there are many 'educationalists' in this country who would love nothing better than to dump Shakespeare altogether & replace him with something more 'relevant'. This is their attempt to make Shakespeare 'easy' - not for the kids, but for the teachers.

Whether Dylan is "greater" than Keats remains a matter of opinion, regardless of how hard you blow.

No its isn't. Keats is greater than Dylan. Bach is greater than Andrew Lloyd Webber. Tolkien is greater than Robert Jordan. etc, etc, etc I place no value on 'opinion' at all, unless its the informed opinion of someone who knows what they're talking about & can offer some evidence in support. Now, I'm not saying that Keats is more 'popular' than Dylan, but that's another issue. 'I prefer 'X' to 'Y'' is totally different to ''X' is greater than 'Y''. The problem is that some (the minister I mentioned for instance) don't make that distinction.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

They aren't 'Shakespeare' comics. The 'quick' versions contain nothing of Shakespeare's poetry, & the full versions, which contain the original text, are redundant. And the 'art' is terrible....

That's because the poetry of Shakespeare is not what's going to interest kids. The idea is that the things that happen in the plays are exciting, but kids rarely realize that because the language is virtually impenetrable to the novice. If an interest can be created, Shakespeare can be taught; if not, he's not the kind of author you can force down a kid's throat just by making his work required reading.

Originally Posted by davem

Oh, believe me, there are many 'educationalists' in this country who would love nothing better than to dump Shakespeare altogether & replace him with something more 'relevant'.

Which is bad in your opinion, but things have to be left out of curriculum and your assessment of Shakespeare as necessary for the average teenager may not be all that well-considered. Shakespeare is not fundamental to education. He is a luxury, and an introduction to his plays via a medium that kids are familiar with is better than nothing.

Originally Posted by davem

This is their attempt to make Shakespeare 'easy' - not for the kids, but for the teachers.

Those lazy, incompetent teachers. They should have their pay cut. Tell me, do you think they're having difficulty teaching Shakespeare to children because they do not understand him themselves and have no idea how to teach his work? Or is it, perhaps, because most kids in school have almost zero interest in reading anything? Kids get out of school what they put into it.

Originally Posted by davem

No its isn't. Keats is greater than Dylan. Bach is greater than Andrew Lloyd Webber. Tolkien is greater than Robert Jordan. etc, etc, etc I place no value on 'opinion' at all, unless its the informed opinion of someone who knows what they're talking about & can offer some evidence in support. Now, I'm not saying that Keats is more 'popular' than Dylan, but that's another issue. 'I prefer 'X' to 'Y'' is totally different to ''X' is greater than 'Y''. The problem is that some (the minister I mentioned for instance) don't make that distinction.

You're imagining a distinction where there isn't one. I'd like to see the data you're referencing. Did you have to extract samples of Dylan and Keats themselves, or were you able to run the tests using pieces of their published materials? I'm really eager to see how the inherent value of these artists' work can be quantified and compared. Because unless you can do that, you're talking about opinion and taste, regardless of how many other opinions validate yours.

Edit: Just so we're clear, I don't know much about Keats or Dylan. I've probably been exposed to an equal amount of each, and didn't really put much effort into either of them. If we were to go into it, you might be able to convince me to agree with you. That's beside the point, though. This guy believes that Dylan is a greater poet than Keats. When someone says "Dude 1 is greater than Dude 2," I hear nothing more than an opinion being voiced, and while I may wonder why they hold an opinion that seems so backwards, I know that it would be literally impossible to prove the point one way or another.

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

That's because the poetry of Shakespeare is not what's going to interest kids. The idea is that the things that happen in the plays are exciting, but kids rarely realize that because the language is virtually impenetrable to the novice. If an interest can be created, Shakespeare can be taught; if not, he's not the kind of author you can force down a kid's throat just by making his work required reading.

If you're only going to teach kids what interests them they're going to learn nothing. If the language is 'impenetrable' to them (& we're not talking about 5 year olds here, but older children & teens) its because the kind of literature they're exposed to is so dire. Shakespeare is modern English. Mind you, I've seen Milton & Bunyan dismissed as 'impenetrable' too.

And the whole point I'm making, btw, is not that young children should be thrown in at the deep end & given no help in understanding Shakespeare. If you look at the links to the animated Shakespeare I gave earlier, you'll see some very clever ways 'in'. The problem with these versions is not that they give children a way 'in', but that they focus purely on plot & not on poetry. This is like trying to teach about Wordsworth by producing comic books full of pictures of clouds & daffodils.

Which is bad in your opinion, but things have to be left out of curriculum and your assessment of Shakespeare as necessary for the average teenager may not be all that well-considered. Shakespeare is not fundamental to education. He is a luxury, and an introduction to his plays via a medium that kids are familiar with is better than nothing.

And what is 'necessary' then? Stuff that has 'practical' uses, which will enable them to pass exams & get jobs? If you can't use it to get on then its optional?

Those lazy, incompetent teachers. They should have their pay cut. Tell me, do you think they're having difficulty teaching Shakespeare to children because they do not understand him themselves and have no idea how to teach his work? Or is it, perhaps, because most kids in school have almost zero interest in reading anything? Kids get out of school what they put into it.

I think its the former in some cases. And, sorry, but its the teachers' job to teach.

You're imagining a distinction where there isn't one. I'd like to see the data you're referencing. Did you have to extract samples of Dylan and Keats themselves, or were you able to run the tests using pieces of their published materials? I'm really eager to see how the inherent value of these artists' work can be quantified and compared. Because unless you can do that, you're talking about opinion and taste, regardless of how many other opinions validate yours.

So, anything goes. There are no objective standards by which we judge quality. A trashy soap opera is equivalent to Hamlet if you think it is? Nothing is objectively better than anything else? Is the 'quick' comic book version of Henry V as good as the original? If so, why bother with the original at all? Why bother moving on to the original - why not just stick with the quick version then?

And yet, we seem to be going round in circles here. We'll probably have to agree to disagree.

Or to get back to Tolkien - is 'boss' a good translation of 'master'? Or would 'Meister' be better?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by davem

Or to get back to Tolkien

Great idea!

- is 'boss' a good translation of 'master'? Or would 'Meister' be better?

Neither - in the first German translation, it is "Herr Frodo". "Herr" can be used in several ways; the most common is as a generic term for male persons, comparable to the English "Mister". It can also mean "lord" or "master". At any rate, it is a formal way of addressing a superior, something that might seem stranger to modern Americans than to traditional Brits and Europeans, who still differentiate between friends and acquaintances and who are still aware of class differences.

Dear me, I can vividly remember the days when one did not dream of addressing an older person by her/his first name unless specifically invited to do so! And this tradition still holds here in Germany, at least partially, especially so in a formal setting such as business and education.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Dear me, I can vividly remember the days when one did not dream of addressing an older person by her/his first name unless specifically invited to do so! And this tradition still holds here in Germany, at least partially, especially so in a formal setting such as business and education.

Oh, yes. I can remember, around 1970 or so, Major Naumann, with whom my father had shared an office for nearly a year, holding a little schnapps ceremony wherein their relationship formally changed from 'Sie' to 'du' and 'Major/Commander' to 'Hans/Bill.'

[Lalaith]

So how does the du/sie tu/vous te/usted (is that right - so long since I did Spanish...) formats work in the German, French and Spanish translations of LotR? Can anyone tell me?
And how were these decisions made I wonder, given that the original English does not have these differentiations?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Ah, excellent question, Lalaith! That is indeed an important question for translators not only of books, but also of movie dialogues for dubbing. Just where does the relationship turn personal enough to allow a transition from the formal "Sie" to the intimate "du"? Basically, one can only attempt to locate a point of time in the plot where the change would take place if it were originally written in German. That also depends on the historical period in which the story takes place. The use of the second person personal pronoun has changed in history.

The medieval feeling of LotR means that there is a form that was once used and is now considered old-fashioned, if not obsolete - "Ihr". That is what Sam uses for "Herr Gandalf". I don't have the modern German translation, so I don't know off-hand what he uses there. But a modern usage would change the flavour of the story, taking it out of ancient times.

Tolkien did give us a hint about the Hobbits' usage - he once said/wrote (sorry, I don't have the exact quote or location at the moment) that the Hobbits only use the familiar pronoun. For that reason Pippin was considered royalty by the people of Gondor, because he addressed Denethor with the familiar pronoun! Only an equal would be allowed that privilege.

That is the reason that Sam calls Frodo "Herr Frodo" (Mr. Frodo) yet uses the familiar "du" - an unlikely combination!

[Lalaith]

ANd then I found this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Oh, Davem, you should know better than to ever take *anything* at face value that you read in the Mail, they constantly misquote, make mischief and de-contextualise everything. This quote:

The genius of Shakespeare is in the language, but for some students understanding it can be a struggle. It will be useful for teachers to have three different versions of the text."

indicates that this is all about differentiated learning - the simplified version is intended for kids who wouldn't be able to access the Shakespearean language for whatever reason - because they have EAL (English as an Additional Language) or SEN (Special Educational Needs).

Its not particularly controversial and it's perfectly good teaching practice - in your average mixed ability class, you could have some kid with an IQ of 55, or a kid who arrived from Poland or Somalia a month ago and can barely speak the language. You've got to teach them too, not just the kid who's going to get an A*, but in order to do so you have to give them different learning materials to help them access the curriculum at whatever level they can.

KIds in the UK have to study closely a set Shakespeare text - including use of language, dramatic effects of various scenes etc - for their English SATs at Key Stage 3 (aged 14) they also have to study another set text for their GCSEs - both in English and English Literature. That isn't going to change any time soon, whatever the scaremongers say.

But of course Keats is greater than Dylan. It's not about personal preference - Milton is also greater than Dylan, and I find Milton boring as hell. (There, I've said it.)

Now that I've disagreed with both of you, I'll depart.

[Bêthberry]

Kudos to Lalaith for arguing with neither disputant!

Having just seen the new Doctor Who episodes "Human Nature/Family of Blood", I venture to ask davem if his objection to this project derives from its apparent lack of quality or from the concept itself?

It seems to me that Doctor Who is doing a fab job making history exciting for young viewers. How many of Doctor Who's fans really appreciate what the red poppy means? Or rather, appreciated before they saw this episode?
Isn't that what Doctor Who was initially/originally intended to do--provide a window into history and the cultural past such that the audience could reaffirm those qualities?

And isn't Doctor Who revered the world over? So... couldn't a comic book version be equally successful in inspiring young 'un to take on The Bard? I'd still rather see a Neil Gaiman comic than these, but I'd leave this question for the disputants?

How does one help new readers of a new age imaginatively enter into art that isn't contempoary?

After all, wasn't Tolkien himself doing something similar, recreating for a new audience a past that he was capable of reading but for which he wanted to stimulate new readers? Can it be said that Tolkien's work is a "dumbing down" of the past sagas and heroic literature for a modern age?

[davem]

The point I'm making is that these 'introductions' are bad - poor quality art, poor quality 'simplified' versions of the text. If you compare the high quality of the animation in the BBC Animated Shakespeare (they used some of the best Russian animators) you can see what can be done if a decent effort is made. This is an attempt to 'translate' Shakespeare, & its a poor effort. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be attempts to make Shakespeare accessible. I'm saying they should be good, high quality efforts, not silly attempts to make it as 'exciting as Spiderman'.

BTW, I also find much of Milton boring - & some of Shakespeare, but, as Lalaith says, that really is not the point.