Aaron Kite
Autor de Shakespeare for Slackers: Romeo and Juliet
Obras de Aaron Kite
Etiquetado
Conocimiento común
- Género
- male
Miembros
Reseñas
Esta reseña ha sido escrita por los Primeros Reseñadores de LibraryThing.Although this would be a good starter for reluctant or unconfident students, the slacker version is not a translation of Shakespeare’s language to modern English but a re-telling of the story in American English. Having the three different layouts means that the original is available. I am not the target audience and found the slacker version jarred but I’m sure that school students will enjoy it, although I don’t think that they are likely to be better equipped to read the real thing.
Esta reseña ha sido escrita por los Primeros Reseñadores de LibraryThing.I loved this book. While I enjoy Shakespeare I know that there are many who struggle to understand what his verses mean. With this book, no problem! Here is a perfect example:
Original:
It is concluded
Banquo, thy soul’s flight, if it finds heaven, must find it out tonight.”
Translation:
Hope you’ve got your affairs in order there, Banquo – because tonight, it sucks to be you.”
Now who would have difficulty understanding that???
The book has three parts, which in my opinion is a bit of an overkill. The first part has the original reading immediately followed by the updated reading, like I did above. The second part of the book is just straight original reading. Then the third part is only the updated version.
So if you want to finally understand the great writings of Shakespeare, these books are for you. And for those who do understand the writings, it is just fun reading.
I received an ebook version from LibraryThing in exchange for an honest review.… (más)
Original:
It is concluded
Banquo, thy soul’s flight, if it finds heaven, must find it out tonight.”
Translation:
Hope you’ve got your affairs in order there, Banquo – because tonight, it sucks to be you.”
Now who would have difficulty understanding that???
The book has three parts, which in my opinion is a bit of an overkill. The first part has the original reading immediately followed by the updated reading, like I did above. The second part of the book is just straight original reading. Then the third part is only the updated version.
So if you want to finally understand the great writings of Shakespeare, these books are for you. And for those who do understand the writings, it is just fun reading.
I received an ebook version from LibraryThing in exchange for an honest review.… (más)
Esta reseña ha sido escrita por los Primeros Reseñadores de LibraryThing.'Shakespeare translated...vandalised, brutalised and outright demolished...Why? Because we can.'
Such is the bold claim made by Aaron Kite and Audrey Evans, who have 'interpreted' Shakespeare's language to transform 'Macbeth' into what 'a few of us think he would have written if he were still around today, and if he sat around watching a lot of television.' Hmm.
As a 'resting' English teacher* my interest was piqued - could this be a useful introduction to Shakespeare for some of my more reluctant readers? Briefly, yes - and no.
== Demolishing Shakespeare ==
Within the first few lines of the play I was wincing at the loss of meaning and change of tone. The powerful witches become grotty 'hags'; the tumultuous thunder and lightning become 'sucky weather'; and the strong statement 'I come Graymalkin' is "translated" to mean 'Does woogums want a treat?' By the end of Act 1 Scene 1 my head was spinning. The witches became inept, the imagery I was used to guiding classes to notice had evaporated and I felt that the text was a startling exemplar of the way in which modern language can elide meaning and prevent meaningful communication.
But. I have spent years studying and teaching Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' (or at least...what we think Shakespeare wrote) and in doing so have gathered a fairly fixed set of meanings about me. My initial horror at their destruction** was gradually replaced by increasing awareness that this is not a rigid text but a play, designed to be performed and capable of being played in many ways. Of course the witches can be presented as ineffectual old dears; of course Macbeth can be played as an overgrown child.
And actually, the modern language used in Act 1 Scene 2 conveys the casualness of killing the traitors and handing the treasured post, Thane of Cawdor, to Macbeth far more clearly to a modern reader than the original language does.
== Building a comedy ==
Of course, it is possible to update the language without completely transforming the genre...but it seems the authors thought 'where's the fun in that?'
So instead of the sense of wonder and authority readers might infer from Macbeth's original instruction to the weird sisters ('Speak, if you can. What are you?'), we are treated to a childish exuberance from our anti-hero, who exclaims that, 'This'll be the easiest fight yet!...Surrender, old bearded ladies!' Later, Banquo wonders whether Macbeth might be 'stoned' rather than 'rapt' and, later still, Macbeth resorts to the classic 'yes, dear' to smooth things over with his wife, who finds her 'butt' pinched by King Duncan. (Yes this is an American translation with American terms and spellings throughout.) And King Duncan's death? We're told by one joker that 'the King...has left the building'.
I suppose this makes sense; if the authors' aim is encourage readers who might have been deterred by the dense language and allusions of the original, why not increase the appeal further by hamming it up? This is definitely an interpretation, not a translation.
== Finding an audience ==
So could you use this with teenagers? Yes - and there are some moments which work beautifully to illuminate original meanings. I particularly liked some of the exchanges around Macbeth being given the honour of Thane of Cawdor. He's told 'The King's busy doing the happy dance because of you!' and responds 'What the hell are you even talking about?' Later the King gives Banquo a hug and the discrepancy between his "reward" and Macbeth's is magnified by repeating the casual verb 'hug' (as opposed to the original 'let me infold thee and hold thee to my heart').
Helpfully, the interpretation is printed alongside the original text, so it's easy to see where subtle meanings have been lost and tackle them separately. My concern would be the change in tone, but selective use could really benefit students' understanding, in the same way as watching a performance or a film does. I'll leave you with this passage which I think works particularly well to draw out meaning that should be easy to spot but isn't if you're already a bit tired, a bit bored of concentrating on Shakespearian language, or just distracted by wondering how long it is 'til lunch.
Macbeth: 'Oh, I've just learned that Duncan's sons have arrived in England and Ireland. They deny they were behind their father's murder, and say I murdered Duncan to become King! And that I'll kill anyone in line to inherit the throne! Isn't that ridiculous?
Hey, is Fleance going riding with you?'
Banquo: 'My son, Fleance, who was prophesised to be King someday? Yup, he's coming. Why?'
Macbeth: 'No reason, no reason at all...just wondering. Well, you'd better get going.'
Written like that, it kind of makes you wonder why Banquo still rode off into the forest. Candidate for a Darwin Award perhaps?… (más)
Such is the bold claim made by Aaron Kite and Audrey Evans, who have 'interpreted' Shakespeare's language to transform 'Macbeth' into what 'a few of us think he would have written if he were still around today, and if he sat around watching a lot of television.' Hmm.
As a 'resting' English teacher* my interest was piqued - could this be a useful introduction to Shakespeare for some of my more reluctant readers? Briefly, yes - and no.
== Demolishing Shakespeare ==
Within the first few lines of the play I was wincing at the loss of meaning and change of tone. The powerful witches become grotty 'hags'; the tumultuous thunder and lightning become 'sucky weather'; and the strong statement 'I come Graymalkin' is "translated" to mean 'Does woogums want a treat?' By the end of Act 1 Scene 1 my head was spinning. The witches became inept, the imagery I was used to guiding classes to notice had evaporated and I felt that the text was a startling exemplar of the way in which modern language can elide meaning and prevent meaningful communication.
But. I have spent years studying and teaching Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' (or at least...what we think Shakespeare wrote) and in doing so have gathered a fairly fixed set of meanings about me. My initial horror at their destruction** was gradually replaced by increasing awareness that this is not a rigid text but a play, designed to be performed and capable of being played in many ways. Of course the witches can be presented as ineffectual old dears; of course Macbeth can be played as an overgrown child.
And actually, the modern language used in Act 1 Scene 2 conveys the casualness of killing the traitors and handing the treasured post, Thane of Cawdor, to Macbeth far more clearly to a modern reader than the original language does.
== Building a comedy ==
Of course, it is possible to update the language without completely transforming the genre...but it seems the authors thought 'where's the fun in that?'
So instead of the sense of wonder and authority readers might infer from Macbeth's original instruction to the weird sisters ('Speak, if you can. What are you?'), we are treated to a childish exuberance from our anti-hero, who exclaims that, 'This'll be the easiest fight yet!...Surrender, old bearded ladies!' Later, Banquo wonders whether Macbeth might be 'stoned' rather than 'rapt' and, later still, Macbeth resorts to the classic 'yes, dear' to smooth things over with his wife, who finds her 'butt' pinched by King Duncan. (Yes this is an American translation with American terms and spellings throughout.) And King Duncan's death? We're told by one joker that 'the King...has left the building'.
I suppose this makes sense; if the authors' aim is encourage readers who might have been deterred by the dense language and allusions of the original, why not increase the appeal further by hamming it up? This is definitely an interpretation, not a translation.
== Finding an audience ==
So could you use this with teenagers? Yes - and there are some moments which work beautifully to illuminate original meanings. I particularly liked some of the exchanges around Macbeth being given the honour of Thane of Cawdor. He's told 'The King's busy doing the happy dance because of you!' and responds 'What the hell are you even talking about?' Later the King gives Banquo a hug and the discrepancy between his "reward" and Macbeth's is magnified by repeating the casual verb 'hug' (as opposed to the original 'let me infold thee and hold thee to my heart').
Helpfully, the interpretation is printed alongside the original text, so it's easy to see where subtle meanings have been lost and tackle them separately. My concern would be the change in tone, but selective use could really benefit students' understanding, in the same way as watching a performance or a film does. I'll leave you with this passage which I think works particularly well to draw out meaning that should be easy to spot but isn't if you're already a bit tired, a bit bored of concentrating on Shakespearian language, or just distracted by wondering how long it is 'til lunch.
Macbeth: 'Oh, I've just learned that Duncan's sons have arrived in England and Ireland. They deny they were behind their father's murder, and say I murdered Duncan to become King! And that I'll kill anyone in line to inherit the throne! Isn't that ridiculous?
Hey, is Fleance going riding with you?'
Banquo: 'My son, Fleance, who was prophesised to be King someday? Yup, he's coming. Why?'
Macbeth: 'No reason, no reason at all...just wondering. Well, you'd better get going.'
Written like that, it kind of makes you wonder why Banquo still rode off into the forest. Candidate for a Darwin Award perhaps?… (más)
Estadísticas
- Obras
- 7
- Miembros
- 64
- Popularidad
- #264,968
- Valoración
- 3.7
- Reseñas
- 35
- ISBNs
- 11
My thoughts: This was a light read, although it had over 20 chapters too it! It was written well, with good description, and correct punctuation. The plot was fine, an idea that I had heard before, but nevertheless was good, quite fast paced, with no long winded descriptions. The only problem I had was with the ending, which I felt was a bit cliched, and was very "happily ever after". I also felt like the ending was written in a rush, and the fluid writing style completely left the author, meaning the ending was written childishly. Apart from that it was an enjoyable read, but not something I would read again. I gave it 3/5 stars.
… (más)