'Bottom, thou art translated.'

[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.