# Literature "Classics" for the Masses



## GenJen54

THIS thread in the English Only forum brought an interesting question to mind. 

One of our forer@s is reading what he says is Shakespeare with "normalized" spelling. In other words, spelling has been changed to fit modern pronunciation as we know and understand it. 

I'm curious.  While I believe the intent of this is to help students better understand Shakespeare by bringing him into "their world," I have to wonder if this is a true advantage or disadvantage, since they are missing out on the richness and origins of our language. 

A few questions for you:

1.  Have you encountered this with the works of literary masters in your language(s)?

2.  Do you see this as advantageous? Disadvantageous?  Why/why not?


----------



## maxiogee

Would you rewrite a poem?

You cannot re-write Shakespeare.
Charles Lamb did the only decent thing you can do to 'introduce' people to Shakespeare - he published *Tales from Shakespeare*. He summarised the stories to a level which could be appreciated by children.


----------



## Outsider

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> A few questions for you:
> 
> 1.  Have you encountered this with the works of literary masters in your language(s)?


Yes, the spelling of old books is updated in new editions, except in technical editions made for specialists.



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> 2.  Do you see this as advantageous? Disadvantageous?  Why/why not?


I think it's advantageous, because most people would have difficulty in reading the books, since they are not familiar with old spellings. I also think that writers in general do not mind the update, as they don't care much about spelling. They seem to be more concerned with content, vocabulary, and phonetic musicality.


----------



## Maria Juanita

Once I've heard that Sigmund Freud learned to speak spanish so he could read "El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha" which will be equal in our mother tongue to Shakespeare's. They said he did it -well, he was a genius I guess- but really, I'm a native and I would have to have a dictionary by my side if I'd ever try to do such _tour de force_.


----------



## la reine victoria

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> THIS thread in the English Only forum brought an interesting question to mind.
> 
> One of our forer@s is reading what he says is Shakespeare with "normalized" spelling. In other words, spelling has been changed to fit modern pronunciation as we know and understand it.
> 
> I'm curious. While I believe the intent of this is to help students better understand Shakespeare by bringing him into "their world," I have to wonder if this is a true advantage or disadvantage, since they are missing out on the richness and origins of our language.
> 
> A few questions for you:
> 
> 1. Have you encountered this with the works of literary masters in your language(s)?
> 
> 2. Do you see this as advantageous? Disadvantageous? Why/why not?


 
Hi GenJen,

Not directly answering your questions, just making a comment (from an English native's viewpoint).

I think it is a great pity that Shakespeare's works are being treated in this way. At school we started studying the Bard at the age of 12. 'As You Like It' was our first taste, it being considered a suitably light-hearted comedy. At the same time we were introduced to Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales'. To our young eyes many of the words were totally alien and I remember we weren't too happy to have to study them. However, with a very patient teacher, and careful use of the glossaries, most of us grew to love these writers. By age 16 we had studied 'Romeo and Juliet', 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', 'The Merchant of Venice', 'Henry IV', 'Hamlet' and 'Macbeth', along with many of Shakespeare's beautiful sonnets. My school was very keen to awaken our interest in the Arts and we managed to find time to study the works of the major poets and other English classical authors.

To get back to using glossaries. Without them we would have been lost. 

My point is that all students of Shakespeare should read his works in the original words and* have access to well-compiled glossaries* to help them fully understand the genius of the man. To 'normalize' or 'modernize' his rich words amounts to sacrilege.

I remember a similar outcry here in the UK when the King James version of the Bible was replaced by The New English Bible.

If I were just starting out in reading Shakespeare I would definitely choose the harder way. To 'normalize' his words is 'robbery'!


La Reine V


----------



## Hakro

1. The translations of literary masters into Finnish ar so much younger than the original that there's no need for "normazlized" spelling.

2. In the original language I would accept a "normalized" version on the condition that there's parallelly the original text.


----------



## Alundra

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> THIS thread in the English Only forum brought an interesting question to mind.
> 
> One of our forer@s is reading what he says is Shakespeare with "normalized" spelling. In other words, spelling has been changed to fit modern pronunciation as we know and understand it.
> 
> I'm curious. While I believe the intent of this is to help students better understand Shakespeare by bringing him into "their world," I have to wonder if this is a true advantage or disadvantage, since they are missing out on the richness and origins of our language.
> 
> A few questions for you:
> 
> 1. Have you encountered this with the works of literary masters in your language(s)?
> 
> In Spanish we have "Don Quijote"
> 
> 2. Do you see this as advantageous? Disadvantageous? Why/why not?


 
I think it isn't bad... you can read one more easier edition firstly, to know the play... and then, if you are interested, you can get the original work and to learn more about this language.

Alundra.


----------



## Benjy

i think giving people a resume of whats going on so they have a road map to the text is way more important than changing the spelling. i'm all for glossaries. and i don't see why it should be that hard? 3 and a half years of french and i'm reading voltaire's philosophical dictionary at the moment. time to stop pandering and start teaching.


----------



## Outsider

My interpretation of the original topic was that Jen was talking about mere spelling changes...  
In any case, just look at how many versions of _Don Quijote_ are available.


----------



## Maria Juanita

I just wanted to add that I would prefer to read the original version of any master piece with the help pf a good glossary that taking a version of it. And well, I have read Voltaire too, in french, and I don't think of it as hard as the Quijote. Any way, It's just my opinion.


----------



## Hakro

Benjy said:
			
		

> i think giving people a resume of whats going on so they have a road map to the text is way more important than changing the spelling. i'm all for glossaries. and i don't see why it should be that hard? 3 and a half years of french and i'm reading voltaire's philosophical dictionary at the moment. time to stop pandering and start teaching.


 Some people are very talented in languages, some people are less. Shouldn't we give the less talented a possibility to get to know the classics, one way or another?


----------



## nichec

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> A few questions for you:
> 
> 1. Have you encountered this with the works of literary masters in your language(s)?
> 
> 2. Do you see this as advantageous? Disadvantageous? Why/why not?


 
Yes, most of the masterpieces in Chinese literature were written in ancient Chinese (I think this is funny because people say that authors and their works often become famous long time after they pass away). As a student, we all spent at least six years learning how to "decode" them (it can be longer if you take it as a major) 

I believe that many people will argue that "they" are the real Chinese and they represent the real Chinese culture, and I can't deny that they have their richness and beauty, but I must confess that they are often the reson why I give up reading the "original" ones and go for the "modified" ones.

As for Shakespeare, I think the original ones are the best once you manage to understand them because the way he arranges his verses is already a great art.


----------



## tvdxer

Being an English speaker, I can of course say this is done all the time with the English classics.   It works both ways.  I can read (for example) the original Macbeth without too much difficulty, but it is much easier to read a "modernized" version.  However, at the same time I miss out on how my language sounded 400 years ago, and how he intended me to read it.  There are some classic English texts, however, that nobody can read without special training.  A perfect example is the most famous Old English story ever, Beowulf.  Here's how a certain phrase (this taken from Wikipedia) reads in more or less modern (but rather florid) English:

"What! We have heard of the glory of the spear-Danes in the old days, of the people's kings, how the princes did deeds of valor."

Even that text might be too difficult to read for some, especially younger students.  But look at the OE text:

"Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon."

Even if you know that ð and þ correspond to the two English "th" sounds, it is very difficult to recover even a remnant of meaning from that sentence, unless you happen to have taken a class or the initiative to teach yourself Old English.​


----------



## Hakro

I have just translated a Shakespeare poem into Finnish. Maybe I'll take the Beowulf next.

"Mitä! Me kasvatetaan puutarhassa vaihdelaatikoissa pelargoniaa ja jotain appelsiinia tai vapautta."

Forget it. Just a joke.


----------



## Hakro

nichec said:
			
		

> Yes, most of the masterpieces in Chinese literature were written in ancient Chinese (I think this is funny because people say that authors and their works often become famous long time after they pass away).


In every civilization most of the authors become famous only after they have passed away.

Anyway, it must be much more difficult to interpret the ancient Chinese texts than the Shakespeare texts as they are so much older. I read a book about the very first Chinese writings ("the turtle writings" if this is correctly translated) and it was fascinating to see how the Chinese writing had developed. 

But is it really possible to interpret the ancient texts if it's literature, not just 'official' text?


----------



## annettehola

This question is really fascinating, Hakro. But as Mandelstam, who always, always takes my breath away, said:"All can be translated. Translation is an art, just like writing a good book is."
I do believe this is true.
But you don't speak of translation only. You speak of the - in my opinion - most essential element in translation: Interpretation. You ask: How can we interpret ancient texts of fiction? Yes, what a lovely question! We can do so only by creating the original context anew. Such is my opinion. It implies: knowledge of History and it implies a lot, a lot, a whole lot of fantasy. With these instruments we can go back in time and see what used to be and survived in fiction. This is the best base for any interpretation of fiction, I believe. Because that is fiction, actually.
Annette


----------



## Vanda

I understand natives considering it a ´murder' of the Master work, but as a teacher of ESL I don´t think it´s a bad a thing. For beginners and intermediate students it´s an opportunity to get in touch with him. When they grow in English they will - for themselves - look forward reading in the original. Actually, most of us read Shakespeare for the first time in our own language. 
I had a great experience with high school students when I " invented" to play Shakespeare with them  - Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet - using these abridged and modernized versions. In the end, many of them told me they were reading Shakespeare´s other works, what is by itself a victory - they are not fond of reading...and I hope someday some of them will be reading again, but this time the original one.


----------



## fenixpollo

Outsider said:
			
		

> My interpretation of the original topic was that Jen was talking about mere spelling changes...


Actually, in modernizing Shakespeare, more than spelling is being changed.  He wrote with a complicated scheme of rhyme and meter, which is lost when it is summarized/modernized.

On the one hand, there is something to be said for using the modernized versions to familiarize first-timers to complex classics, and save the original texts for more advanced levels of study.

On the other hand, is there really a point to studying the masters if all of their imagery is "translated" into a very literal, modern speech?  If we "dumb down" the text, how are students going to be challenged?  Or is the only important thing that 15-year-olds "read" Romeo & Juliet?


----------



## annettehola

"On the one hand, there is something to be said for using the modernized versions to familiarize first-timers to complex classics, and save the original texts for more advanced levels of study."

What there "is to be said," then, seems to be this: It's crap of the highest degree and disrespectful to an unspeakable extent to change the works of authors long dead. Full stop, man. No one has the right to do that. If you wonder what an author meant, ask her/him if you can't figure it out yourself. If the author doesn't answer you - and Beckett for one, fx, never did, he said:"What I meant I wrote there. I have nothing to add to my work." - then accept that you cannot grasp it, wait some years, read it again, and - hopefully - a sun will rise on your inner horizon.

Annette


----------



## Fernando

Most times, Cervantes (Quixote) is not "adapted", except for children editions.

I would say that most authors from 16th centrury after do not require adaptions, though many words and expressions (obviously, overall, poetry) are old-fashioned or not used at all.

I find "adaptions" useful for children and foreign students. Spanish from 11th-14th centuries probably requires adaptions for the general public (or, of course, better) anotated editions.


----------



## fenixpollo

annettehola said:
			
		

> What there "is to be said," then, seems to be this: It's crap of the highest degree and disrespectful to an unspeakable extent to change the works of authors long dead. Full stop, man. No one has the right to do that. If you wonder what an author meant, ask her/him if you can't figure it out yourself. If the author doesn't answer you - and Beckett for one, fx, never did, he said:"What I meant I wrote there. I have nothing to add to my work." - then accept that you cannot grasp it, wait some years, read it again, and - hopefully - a sun will rise on your inner horizon.


 Well said.  

Here's a related thread in English Only: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=52683 

The reason we don't read Beowulf or Chaucer the way it was written is that the language has evolved to make the original text unintelligible.  After several hundred years, a language changes so much that it begs the question: what is the expiration date for words?  Are we at the point yet at which we need to give up reading Quijote and Shakespeare in the original language, as we are with Beowulf and Chaucer?  We will reach that point eventually... the only question is, When?


----------



## annettehola

"what is the expiration date for words?"

Answer: Never.

Annette


----------



## Fernando

Then, are you compelling me to read Tacitus only in Latin?


----------



## annettehola

Yes. That is so.

And when you're done, re-read it.

Annette


----------



## Fernando

Well, in Spanish is superb, so I can not wait for the orgasmus of reading it in Latin.


----------



## nichec

Hakro said:
			
		

> In every civilization most of the authors become famous only after they have passed away.





			
				Hakro said:
			
		

> Anyway, it must be much more difficult to interpret the ancient Chinese texts than the Shakespeare texts as they are so much older. I read a book about the very first Chinese writings ("the turtle writings" if this is correctly translated) and it was fascinating to see how the Chinese writing had developed.
> 
> But is it really possible to interpret the ancient texts if it's literature, not just 'official' text?




I heard (or read) once that the reason why great arts only get to be appreciated long time after they were created is because they/the message they content were beyond the comprehension of their own time. Critics were afraid to praise them in their own time, yet once the artists were gone, it seems somehow "right" to praise their works and "regret" how we neglect their works when they were still alive....

Yes, you get it right, it's call "the turtle writings", it's the most original ones like the pictures you can find in the caves in the dessert. Do you know how they come to exist? Most of them take the shape of the actual things into letters, for example, a person "人" comes from how we simply draw a person (a round head and a straight line for body and two seperated line for legs), you can find lots of words comes from drawings like this one , and there are other ways to creat "the turtle writings" too.

Chinese characters are already well developed through the years, the form changes a lot, most the masterpieces were written not in "the turtle writtings" but more "advanced" forms, so yes, it's possible to "decode" them to modern chinese.


----------

