![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSometimes I think the internet is all about socializing for lazy souls like myself who are too tired from the work day to lug our asses across town and meetup with people in a bar. ie. Socialization for the socially lazy.
Reading flist's outraged comments about Orson Scott Card's absurd decision to write novelizations of Shakespearean plays, has made me feel, oddly, validated for never having been able to make it past the first fifty pages of Ender's Game or anything else this guy has written.
In case you missed it, Card has apparently done novelizations or English Language translations of Romeo and Juliet, the Taming of the Shrew and Hamlet, so far. (I guess they weren't in English to begin with? No wait, they weren't in modern American English and dated, so he has to UPDATE them.) I don't know about you, but I personally can't wait for him to try his hand at Titus Andronicus, Macbeth, and Midsummer Night's Dream.
*Note to the people reading this who are still in school and are looking for a way to get out of reading Shakespeare's plays: These are not meant to be substitutions for reading the play, or even Cliff Notes versions for that matter. In short, if you read Card's version instead and try to pass that test on Hamlet in your English Lit Class or on the Standardized Tests? You'll most likely flunk your test and your teacher will either laugh at you or rip you a new one. Go rent either Zefreilli's or Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet's instead, you'll thank me later. (Or...you could read for extra credit Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, but I'm warning you it makes no sense until you've actually read Shakespeare's Hamlet - irritating 16th Century language intact. You'll miss all the good jokes. Actually, I think there's version starring David Tennant lurking out there somewhere - of Hamlet not Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. For Taming? Easy, there's a movie version with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. (For extra credit? Rent Who's Afraid of Virigina Woolf. Or the Moonlighting episode with Cybil Shepard and Bruce Willis, it's hardly accurate, but a lot closer than well, Card's version, not to mention more entertaining.)
Hmmm, I'm guessing Card ran out of original ideas, and decided, you know what? I'll read the Shakespearean plays and reinterpret them (badly) for a right-wing somewhat intellectually deficient audience, because I can and well, the classics should be made more digestible for a modern day and somewhat conservative palate. We need oursuperstitionsbeliefs and opinions facts reaffirmed after all. Not questioned. Because that would be bad. Actually according to the interview Card's been directing and reinterpreting the plays for years for theater, and decided to make money of it:
I’ve been directing plays for many years, but beginning with my production of Romeo and Juliet last year, I have begun the serious work of adapting the English-language versions of Shakespeare’s plays for a modern audience. When you see Shakespeare in French, it is generally translated into language that the audience can understand ; in English, however, the language is not translated, so modern audiences have to struggle with understanding the language of 1600.
Hmmm, I could be wrong about this, but last time I checked the French don't translate Moliere for modern audiences, just English into French. Or more appropriately, Marguerite de Navarre and the Farce writers of the Renaissance. It's just Americans who feel this funky need to get translations for well, their own native language. Particularly old Medieval and Renaissance English because it is sooo hard to understand. Honestly, next you'll be translating Chaucer.
[And thus we learn once again, in case we forgot or didn't know already, the real reason most authors do not want their properties to fall into the public domain until at least 70 years after their death. They figure by that time, no one who knew them alive will be able read the insane translations, interpretations and rip-offs of their work.]
Reading flist's outraged comments about Orson Scott Card's absurd decision to write novelizations of Shakespearean plays, has made me feel, oddly, validated for never having been able to make it past the first fifty pages of Ender's Game or anything else this guy has written.
In case you missed it, Card has apparently done novelizations or English Language translations of Romeo and Juliet, the Taming of the Shrew and Hamlet, so far. (I guess they weren't in English to begin with? No wait, they weren't in modern American English and dated, so he has to UPDATE them.) I don't know about you, but I personally can't wait for him to try his hand at Titus Andronicus, Macbeth, and Midsummer Night's Dream.
*Note to the people reading this who are still in school and are looking for a way to get out of reading Shakespeare's plays: These are not meant to be substitutions for reading the play, or even Cliff Notes versions for that matter. In short, if you read Card's version instead and try to pass that test on Hamlet in your English Lit Class or on the Standardized Tests? You'll most likely flunk your test and your teacher will either laugh at you or rip you a new one. Go rent either Zefreilli's or Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet's instead, you'll thank me later. (Or...you could read for extra credit Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, but I'm warning you it makes no sense until you've actually read Shakespeare's Hamlet - irritating 16th Century language intact. You'll miss all the good jokes. Actually, I think there's version starring David Tennant lurking out there somewhere - of Hamlet not Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. For Taming? Easy, there's a movie version with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. (For extra credit? Rent Who's Afraid of Virigina Woolf. Or the Moonlighting episode with Cybil Shepard and Bruce Willis, it's hardly accurate, but a lot closer than well, Card's version, not to mention more entertaining.)
Hmmm, I'm guessing Card ran out of original ideas, and decided, you know what? I'll read the Shakespearean plays and reinterpret them (badly) for a right-wing somewhat intellectually deficient audience, because I can and well, the classics should be made more digestible for a modern day and somewhat conservative palate. We need our
I’ve been directing plays for many years, but beginning with my production of Romeo and Juliet last year, I have begun the serious work of adapting the English-language versions of Shakespeare’s plays for a modern audience. When you see Shakespeare in French, it is generally translated into language that the audience can understand ; in English, however, the language is not translated, so modern audiences have to struggle with understanding the language of 1600.
Hmmm, I could be wrong about this, but last time I checked the French don't translate Moliere for modern audiences, just English into French. Or more appropriately, Marguerite de Navarre and the Farce writers of the Renaissance. It's just Americans who feel this funky need to get translations for well, their own native language. Particularly old Medieval and Renaissance English because it is sooo hard to understand. Honestly, next you'll be translating Chaucer.
[And thus we learn once again, in case we forgot or didn't know already, the real reason most authors do not want their properties to fall into the public domain until at least 70 years after their death. They figure by that time, no one who knew them alive will be able read the insane translations, interpretations and rip-offs of their work.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-07 11:40 pm (UTC)This amuses me. Because surrrre we need yet another re-telling of Romeo and Juliet or Taming of the Shrew. Those have never been retold
a whole hell of a lot. :)And as far as Shakespeare goes, I've tended to think it works best as it was originally intended -- to be spoken aloud. A really good actor who can give the language a conversational style rather than a stilted amateurish reading used to pontificate can do wonders with making the original language work exceedingly well
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 12:55 am (UTC)Hee. Me too. I found his explanation to be hilarious. Of all the plays to pick...he picks the one's that have been interpreted, re-interpreted, and retold in so many different ways. Quick, someone send him the Twilight books. LOL!
And as far as Shakespeare goes, I've tended to think it works best as it was originally intended -- to be spoken aloud. A really good actor who can give the language a conversational style rather than a stilted amateurish reading used to pontificate can do wonders with making the original language work exceedingly well.
Oh, I so agree. I didn't get Romeo and Juliet - until I saw Franco Zefrelli's beautiful film in Junior High. And King Lear? It worked so much better watching Anthony Hopkins interpretation of Lear than reading the play.
Half tempted to download the audio version of Marster's Macbeth. (Although in high school - we listened to Richard Burton's version.) And the excellent Ian McKellan version of Richard the III. That's how you do Shakespeare.
They are plays after all - they are meant to be watched and seen, not read. Plays aren't meant to be read - I know I read so many of them, Woody Allen just isn't the same on the page. It's like looking at the blueprints of a building - you can't tell what it is until it is built. As for interpretation? That's what actors are for. That's their job.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 12:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 12:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 01:08 am (UTC)And for God's sake, it's a refusal to understand the mythology of the Philosopher's Stone!
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 05:34 am (UTC)This strikes me as the height of egotism: as in, I can do better with Shakespeare's material than the Bard himself could...
I've never read anything of Card's, and I won't be starting with this, for sure!
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 04:26 pm (UTC)Have you read the interview? Oh...it very much is exactly that. Talk about someone who thinks just a little bit too highly of himself. (I can't help but think he's been hanging out on one too many fan pages.)
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 08:35 am (UTC)Here’s the punch line: Old King Hamlet was an inadequate king because he was gay, an evil person because he was gay, and, ultimately, a demonic and ghostly father of lies who convinces young Hamlet to exact imaginary revenge on innocent people. The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy—along with Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, thereby turning all of them gay. We learn that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are now “as fusty and peculiar as an old married couple. I pity the woman who tries to wed her way into that house.”
Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
...wow. Wow.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 04:32 pm (UTC)I read the review first, then hunted for other links, partly because everyone is linking to the review..
I found the interview with Card about writing these novellas, and the reactions on Good Reads to the Hamlet one. (Which are both really disturbing in different ways.)
It's not just Hamlet, he also apparently had a field day with Taming of the Shrew.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 05:01 pm (UTC)Yeah, I saw that. Though to be honest... not that it makes his intentions any less skeevy, but at least finding a "women need to submit to men" message in Taming has some sort of logic to it.* Whereas his Hamlet fanwank is just... insane.
* The best, or at least most efficient, solution to how to approach TotS that I've heard of recently was one where they ended it with Petruchio saying "Kiss me, Kate!" and her socking him in the jaw.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 07:21 pm (UTC)But you are correct, Card's take on Hamlet , outside of being grossly offensive, is from a purely objective point of view? Just insanely illogical - it does not make logical sense. I guess if you squint and maybe are reading a very bad translation of it - you could get that? But even then it is a wild reinterpretation of the text - that is clearly the writer (CARD) projecting his own issues on to it.
Making me wonder about Card, and well those who are enjoying his take on it.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 07:22 pm (UTC)typos when I do that.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 03:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 04:49 pm (UTC)Before you feel too much pity, go read the Good Reads link - it's under "Hamelt" above, I think. That has a disturbing number of people who really like the book and/or mark it as something they want to read.
I think and I may be wrong, but it feels like he subscribes to a Heiminwayesque view of men and women, the view of "machoism" and the romantic ideal of the "macho" man or male role, which simply is not true. I see this in a lot of male sci-writers.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 05:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 06:36 pm (UTC)(Like CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia
and the Anne McCaffrey novels - which I loved and had fond memories of.)
Although there are writers out there, *cough*TSEliot*cough*, Flannery O'Connor, and Virgina Woolf
who ...wrote great works, but were racist or anti-semitic. (shrugs).
So the beliefs of the writer don't always taint their works.
Also...it's possible for writers to change. They can be start out one way and be quite different later. No personality is set in stone, after all.
So, when I picked up Ender's Game three or four years ago - it's more than possible that I read more into it than was there, because what I knew of the writer tainted the read. Sort of like trying to watch a Mel Gibson film, I suspect.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 07:14 pm (UTC)What is it with the Mormons and homophobia? Granted I've scanned their bible and my knowledge of their religion is somewhat sketchy...but I don't remember the Mormons being THIS intolerant?