Anne's english

[c_ris]

Originally Posted by ghyle

Not quite.

We should read, for example, Langland or Chaucer in his English, yes (to choose an extreme), however, that does not preclude the use of glosses and other aids for the lay reader I also raised the possibility of adaptions, no? It is eminently, and no doubt would be enjoyably, possible to adapt Chaucer into prose, give it a bit of a fantasy twist, and have that.

As for Rousseau, I did admit the place of translations, into English. But if the French were to read the texts, they should read them in Rousseau's French, not their own version.

Reading Chaucer in his own words in BLOODY hard work! It may be fun for people like you, but not for the average reader, who reads for enjoyment, and for whom textual purity is essential.

Try reading Hobbes' Leviathan in his own words. I have. And it RIDICULOUSLY hard. Also Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is again full of flowery language and old-style grammar, but Burke is more modern than Hobbes to start with. For me, I had to struggle through these 'pure' works because I was reading for a specific purpose, for my uni course. But for someone else, it would have been less likely that they would have bothered to read them. I know that I would have given up had I not had to read.

Then answer is not updating the work, but adapting the work. Consider the recent series of adaptations from Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales. You will notice that the settings, and situations have been contemporised, for example, and it is accessible to less determined readers than myself.

That is a complete change of the text though, rather than updating the language to make it more accessible.

I have nothing against adaptation; I encourage it. But the original text must stand as it is, and should be approached as it is.

The original text must always be available, but modifications MUST be made if it to be accessible to those who wish to read for enjoyment.

[ghyle]

Originally Posted by c_ris

Reading Chaucer in his own words in BLOODY hard work! It may be fun for people like you, but not for the average reader, who reads for enjoyment, and for whom textual purity is essential.

Reading Chaucer in the Middle English can be hard, yes, but as a result it can, for the effort, be rewarding. When you argue that the text should be made more readable for our contemporaries, and I argue that such are permissable as adaptations, we are, in essence, asking for the same thing. However, whereas you allow the possibility of Chaucer being identified as the primary author of the piece (and authorship is a far more complex situation than many realise, as we both know, no?), I allow only the possibility that Chaucer be identified as the source of the adaptations, and not the literal author of them.

We admit the same basic thing; what differs is the identificatory relationship with the original text of that modernisation.

Originally Posted by c_ris

Try reading Hobbes' Leviathan in his own words. I have. And it RIDICULOUSLY hard. Also Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is again full of flowery language and old-style grammar, but Burke is more modern than Hobbes to start with. For me, I had to struggle through these 'pure' works because I was reading for a specific purpose, for my uni course. But for someone else, it would have been less likely that they would have bothered to read them. I know that I would have given up had I not had to read.

I've read Hobbes, but not Burke. I look forward to the latter. I struggled with Leviathan, yes, but that was an artefact of the argument, not the language, so much.

Originally Posted by c_ris

That is a complete change of the text though, rather than updating the language to make it more accessible.

I didn't argue that there was a complete fidelity to the original, but that it was a modernised adaptation. I've not seen it myself, though. I can understand your point: the setting, and the plot be retained, rather than the medium in which they're basically encoded, right? As in Shakespeare's work derived from Holingshead and Plutarch, no? Now there's the quintessential chap: adapted work, and in doing so created masterpieces. Salut!

Originally Posted by c_ris

The original text must always be available, but modifications MUST be made if it to be accessible to those who wish to read for enjoyment.

I can't agree. If we modify it, the original text is destroyed, no matter how. What we should do, then, is have the original text, and make adaptations from it. If we wish to make the original text more accessible, without making adaptations, then we can produce aids: glosses, etc. as I mentioned before. We can also, if you like, produce work that can lead into the original, such as popular works about Shakespeare or Chaucer. To use Leviathan, there could be an "Introduction" to that work for the general reader, setting it in its context, looking at its language, how we obtained its current form, looking in detail at its argument, and so on.

I can actually see us, mate, collaborating on suchlike works, and having a right old time in the process of doing so. Now: that would be fun, no?

BTW: I appreciate the effort that you're putting into this; I admire you for the effort you're placing, and I respect you as a result. And we haven't even started on originality....

[c_ris]

Originally Posted by ghyle

I've read Hobbes, but not Burke. I look forward to the latter. I struggled with Leviathan, yes, but that was an artefact of the argument, not the language, so much.

His argument is relatively simple once you get past the language

I can't agree. If we modify it, the original text is destroyed, no matter how. What we should do, then, is have the original text, and make adaptations from it. If we wish to make the original text more accessible, without making adaptations, then we can produce aids: glosses, etc. as I mentioned before. We can also, if you like, produce work that can lead into the original, such as popular works about Shakespeare or Chaucer. To use Leviathan, there could be an "Introduction" to that work for the general reader, setting it in its context, looking at its language, how we obtained its current form, looking in detail at its argument, and so on.

Modification in LANGUAGE but retaining the rest of it is essential for popular works such as those of Shakespeare to remain in the public mind. If you try and sell the works of Shakespeare as he wrote them, then much fewer would - or could - read them. And so they would drop from view and be available to NO-ONE in any manner. Shakespeare remains popular quite simply because his works are used a lot in schools and are often adapted into plays and movies. That is why Shakespeare sells, and why he is known. If they are NOT adapted then people will NOT know about them, and then EVERYONE will lose out.

I can actually see us, mate, collaborating on suchlike works, and having a right old time in the process of doing so. Now: that would be fun, no?

BTW: I appreciate the effort that you're putting into this; I admire you for the effort you're placing, and I respect you as a result. And we haven't even started on originality....

Ditto

[ghyle]

Originally Posted by c_ris

Modification in LANGUAGE but retaining the rest of it is essential for popular works such as those of Shakespeare to remain in the public mind. If you try and sell the works of Shakespeare as he wrote them, then much fewer would - or could - read them. And so they would drop from view and be available to NO-ONE in any manner. Shakespeare remains popular quite simply because his works are used a lot in schools and are often adapted into plays and movies. That is why Shakespeare sells, and why he is known. If they are NOT adapted then people will NOT know about them, and then EVERYONE will lose out.

I'm not sure that modifying Shakespeare's language is, in his case, essential. It seems to me that there are few works where such a modification would not be useful, given the strength of their appearances within culture.

However, you are right that the popularity is in part due to their frequent adaptation, both into faithful movies, and 'retellings'. As for stage productions, these are less adaptations as they are recontextualisations, so that each production is, ideally to most, an updating of the play, and an attempt to make it contemporary.

Shakespeare is not too difficult, though, if we are led into them, as in schools, and we have a passing familiarity already. He is a modern writer after all.

[c_ris]

Originally Posted by ghyle

Shakespeare is not too difficult, though, if we are led into them, as in schools, and we have a passing familiarity already. He is a modern writer after all.

In what sense is Shakespeare a 'modern' writer? His grammar and spelling is archaic, and he lived in what is defined as the EARLY MODERN period (that of Elizabeth I and James I (and VI)). The Modern perios started in 1789 with the French Revolution, according to historians.

[ghyle]

He's to me a modern writer in that he used modern, albeit early modern, English, rather than Middle English. He's also a modern writer in that he stands at the first efflorescence of characterisation in English drama, and has proved pivotal for so many writers afterwards.

Although I don't hold him to be the greatest writer overall (rather Homer higher, for example), he is the greatest writer of the English language to me.