Comments on: Starting Shakespeare In Modern English

By: Willshill

Willshill — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:26:43 +0000

A response to Mr. Hort’s posting:
Conclusion so far:
Kids doing Shakespeare’s version or a Modern English version had fun doing them. This really doesn’t address the question, does it?

It seems that the learning curve for when students as old as 14 and 15 are to experience SHAKESPEARE is set somewhat shallow.

In my experience, having worked with every grade, the entire school-K-5-(ages 5-11) knew speeches from the play they were watching–and they were Shakespeare’s speeches.

When do you advocate a severing of the umbilical the ‘translating’ method provides for them? In other words, (forgive the pun) when, in your opinion, are they ready to experience not your words, but his words?

By: John Hort

John Hort — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:53:28 +0000

Comments by children aged 7 – 15 who took part in The Inessential (modern English) version of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” can be found on our website http://www.startingshakespeare.co.uk by clicking on Nutley Production:
Here’s one of them: “I played the part of Titania in A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. The simplified version of the original script was wonderful, using modern language with an extensive vocabulary. I was able to enjoy the part a lot more. I loved playing the part of Titania, my lines were magical to say and with the set and costumes the play worked beautifully. (Claire, aged 15)

And another: “I thought the way it was written was really fab. I really had fun with my role.” (Bottom) (Tom, aged 14)

By: Gedaly

Gedaly — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:21:27 +0000

My experience with Shakespeare and children together amounts to about none, so I’m pleased to hear your confidence in being able to use only the original language. I would have to agree that regardless of age, “the approach is key to their success.” Schools are not filled with teachers who are fully equipped to teach Shakespeare effectively. Thus, the cycle of laziness continues.

By: Willshill

Willshill — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:26:45 +0000

My feelings about changing the language aren’t, as are yours, mixed. I think it’s a horrendous idea, bred from laziness which, in turn, breeds more laziness.

I recently finished a month long Shakespeare artist in residence at an elementary school (K-5). At the end of the project, the 5th graders performed my edit of AMND, in ‘Shakespeake’, for the rest of the school. It was a huge success. The kids loved the ’strange language’ and became familiar with it in a surprisingly short time.

These children are more than ready for the challenge; the approach is key to their success. If we want to familiarize them with the stories, fine–read it to them or have them read them–there are several adaptations that work very well in that regard. But the text is the text. How do we expect them to learn how to handle classical words and speech (the exercise itself a catalyst for developing an interest) if we constantly remove the opportunity to do so?

The classical form, treated correctly from the performance point of view, is particularly suited to the energy these students can summon.
In the words of this production’s Bottom:”I had to practice hard. I really winged it my first day, but I learned how to look at words before reading them.”

We underestimate–they lose.