****Note: If you are discussing a fellow student's observations which he / she shared with you, that is fine; just give them credit and try to extend the observation in your own way.
Original Text |
Modern Text (No Fear Shakespeare) |
|
Hautboys. Torches. Enter a
sewer and divers servants with dishes and service over the stage. Then enter MACBETH
|
Hautboys play. The stage is
lit by torches. A butler enters, and various servants carry utensils and
dishes of food across the stage. Then MACBETH enters.
|
|
5 10 15 20 25 |
MACBETH
If it were done when ’tis
done, then ’twere well
It were done quickly. If the
assassination
Could trammel up the
consequence, and catch
With his surcease success;
that but this blow
Might be the be-all and the
end-all here,
But here, upon this bank and
shoal of time,
We’d jump the life to come.
But in these cases
We still have judgment here,
that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which,
being taught, return
To plague th' inventor: this
even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of
our poisoned chalice
To our own lips. He’s here
in double trust:
First, as I am his kinsman
and his subject,
Strong both against the
deed; then, as his host,
Who should against his
murderer shut the door,
Not bear the knife myself.
Besides, this Duncan
Hath borne his faculties so
meek, hath been
So clear in his great
office, that his virtues
Will plead like angels,
trumpet-tongued, against
The deep damnation of his
taking-off;
And pity, like a naked
newborn babe,
Striding the blast, or
heaven’s cherubim, horsed
Upon the sightless couriers
of the air,
Shall blow the horrid deed
in every eye,
That tears shall drown the
wind. I have no spur
To prick the sides of my
intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which
o'erleaps itself
And falls on th' other.
|
MACBETH
If this business would
really be finished when I did the deed, then it would be best to get it over
with quickly. If the assassination of the king could work like a net,
sweeping up everything and preventing any consequences, then the murder would
be the be-all and end-all of the whole affair, and I would gladly put my soul
and the afterlife at risk to do it. But for crimes like these there are still
punishments in this world. By committing violent crimes we only teach other
people to commit violence, and the violence of our students will come back to
plague us teachers. Justice, being equal to everyone, forces us to drink from
the poisoned cup that we serve to others. The king trusts me in two ways.
First of all, I am his kinsman and his subject, so I should always try to
protect him. Second, I am his host, so I should be closing the door in his
murderer’s face, not trying to murder him myself. Besides, Duncan has been such a humble leader, so
free of corruption, that his virtuous legacy will speak for him when he dies,
as if angels were playing trumpets against the injustice of his murder. Pity,
like an innocent newborn baby, will ride the wind with winged angels on
invisible horses through the air to spread news of the horrible deed to
everyone everywhere. People will shed a flood of tears that will drown the
wind like a horrible downpour of rain. I can’t spur myself to action. The
only thing motivating me is ambition, which makes people rush ahead of
themselves toward disaster.
|
The two pieces differentiate in many ways. As a reader, you prefer reading something that you can understand, instead of reading something that challenges your mind. In my opinion, personally, I believe that by reading something that explains to me what the main idea of the text is, makes me much more confident on the subject I'm reading about. Shakespeare however connects the emotion that he feels with the sensibility that he writes; which adds so much more to the piece and makes it more interesting and fascinating to read. The translator by translating the story, made it sound completely different because he used his own tone and his own voice, which changes the whole understanding of the concept. In fact, not just the story changes, but also how the person reading it interprets it. Even though it is better to read something you can relate to, because you understand it, it is also good to be able to relate to something as historical as Macbeth. The wording of the original piece also emphasizes the story, which gets lost by the translation, because of the words we use today. As much as the translator doesn't help the text very much, it makes our life easier by explaining what the words mean in connection to Shakespeare. It's like two doors open with two different points of view, that is helpful for the understanding of the plot and the story in all as well.
ReplyDeleteThe original version of Shakespeare's monologue has nicer flow than the translated version. It also is a lot more detailed and can be interpreted differently in certain situations. The translated version seems more dry as well and doesn't really give the affect that the original does. "Duncan has been such a humble leader, so free of corruption, that his virtuous legacy will speak for him when he dies, as if angels were playing trumpets against the injustice of his murder." That part for example can be interpreted differently. Also I think it is exaggerated at parts. For example that part above, you could not possibly get all of those little details out of what is said in the original. Therefore it alters your understanding of the piece.
ReplyDeleteThe main changes that the translator made to this monologue were the language and they sentence structure. The way Shakespeare writes his sentences are very confusing for a lot of people to read because of where the words are placed so they translator had to make it more modern. Because of the way the translator had to change the language and sentence structure the mood of the monologue completely changed. The original version is a lot more dramatic and smooth. The translated version doesn’t have the same dramatic effect so it just makes the whole monologue sound weird. It’s like the monologue had to become more boring so people could understand what was being said. I think that the main difference between these two monologues is the language. If the language was as dramatic as it was in the original version then maybe they would have been a little more similar but they translator decided to use words that people would definitely know. People perform Shakespeare’s plays in the original language because it is so much more meaningful and dramatic. These are the words that Shakespeare wrote himself so why would people want to go see a play that was written by some translator. “Second, I am his host, so I should be closing the door in his murderer’s face, not trying to murder him myself.” This is from the translated version and I think that this would sound very weird in a play compared to the original version. “; then, as his host, Who should against his murderer shut the door, Not bear the knife myself.” The original version just sounds more sophisticated and dramatic than the translated version.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare’s monologue is very different than the translated version of Macbeth’s monologue. Although it can be a little more difficult to interpret, the language has a certain complexity to it that is enticing to read. The translated version is expressed in a very boring way that detracts from the piece and many of the elements in the translated version are poorly expressed compared to the original. When Macbeth talks of his lament for his actions of killing Duncan. “First, as I am his kinsman and his subject, Strong both against the deed; then as his host, Who should against his murderer shut the door, Not bear the knife myself.” Shakespeare’s version is able to convey the thoughts of Macbeth in such an intriguing way that allows the reader to enjoy the drama and language of the monologue.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare is known for his style of writing, and it's his genius with words that makes him so highly regarded and well known, not the actual story of the play. The modern translation is simply to help the reader understand the story, which is quite simple if you strip away all of Shakespeare's brilliancy with language. The metaphors Shakespeare uses and the rhythm / flow of his words are what make his works masterpieces. In no way does the modern translation begin to compare with the original text. The translation is for understanding the text only, and the reason people always perform the original language because that is where the magic is, not with the plot. The translation flattens out the words and takes away from the intensity of what Shakespeare is trying to convey. His language compared to modern language requires much more thought processing because there are many hidden layers behind the comparisons and puns.
ReplyDeleteI just wrote a really good response, and then it didn't go through. So this one won't be as good because now I am frustrated. Anyways, what I was saying was the reason Shakespeare is so well known and highly regarded is not because of the basic plots of his plays or the message of his poems but the way he plays with words and language and twists it into a seamless piece of work filled with genius metaphors and puns. The modern translation completely flattens out the brilliancy of Shakespeare and leaves just the story, which in itself is not very impressive. His cleverness lies behind his ability to take words and put layers over them to mean a number of different things, and his use of words make the idea so intense that the images put into the reader's head is much stronger than the images the reader would get from the modern translation. The reason the plays are always performed in the original language is because without the language, the stories are simple and predictable. Shakespeare's words are what bring the magic to the show.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many students would rather read a " translated" version of Shakespeare's work, the reason teachers do not allow it is because they would miss the whole concept of Shakespeare's way of writing. The reason shakespeare is so well known is because of his unique was of using puns and metaphors, forcing the reader to read interpret the words in a different perspective than they normally would. Shakespeare tends to confuse the younger generations because we are not used to his style of writing. When reading the translated version, the reader may be able to understand the main idea of the paragraph, but they will miss out on the comparisons that shakespeare makes that the translated version skips. The translated version is straight and to the point, skipping over "unneeded" details that shakespeare uses in his version. Although he seems to "over exaggerate" topics, thats the beauty of shakespeare's work, he comes up with confusing metaphors, causing the mind to think more.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading both pieces, there are different ways to interpret each. The modern translated version, may be put into modern English, and may be intended to be read easier, but the problem is that it tries to put the exact dialogue into modern English. When reading Shakespeare, it is very hard to directly explain what it means in English, because that's not what it was intended for. It was more intended for you to understand the overall plot. The translated version seems a bit out of place, not really making to much sense because the language was not meant for that. The old English version may seem to make less sense since it is no longer spoken like that, but when reading it, it seems I got more out of it than the translated version. The reason must be that Shakespeare has a way of explaining things that cannot be put into the modern language as well because they weren't made for that. The way that it is in old English, with the amount of creative language and figurative speech, must have just been lost in modern English and that may be the reason it cannot be expressed the same way.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare’s monologue is very different than the translated version even though they share the same information. Shakespeare has a very distinct writing style that makes his work with more emphasis and to be more meaning, while the translated version does not have them same quality. In Shakespeare’s version, the lines “Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye, / That tears shall drown the wind,” has more significance to the consequences than “People will shed a flood of tears that will drown the wind like a horrible downpour of rain.” The translated version may be easier to read and may be preferred to those not invested in Shakespearean literature, but Shakespeare’s words will always have certain eloquence that cannot be vulgarized.
ReplyDeleteEven though both monologues are saying the same thing, they differ in many ways. For instance Shakespeare's original has more flow to it that makes it more pleasing to the reader.The adapted or translated one however only translates the words there is not rhythm.Shakespeare's piece is like artwork because of his skill with words and how he uses them to tell the story. The translated one has almost desensitized the piece and taken the emotion and meaning out of it.
ReplyDeleteThe translator made many changes to the monologue but the main changes included the vocabulary and eliminating Shakespeare’s writing style. Shakespeare is different from other writers because of the way his sentences are set up and how he gets his point across. The translator dulled everything down and put the sentence structure into a more modern way of speaking. In doing this I thought that the translator made the piece sound extremely flat and had no details. The translator also explained things that did not need to be explained, for instance, “We’d jump the life to come. But in these cases, We still have judgment here, that we but teach.” The translator dumbed this down by saying that he will risk murdering someone and believe that he still has a hope for a good afterlife. I felt like that was unnecessary and sounded a lot less smooth than what Shakespeare said. When I am reading the original version I can feel the emotions and thoughts that the character is feeling and contemplating but in the translated version I feel like I am not even reading a book but more of an article. The monologue was less interesting when it was translated and it is mainly due to the Shakespearean style of language being eliminated when it was translated. His style is different from modern language because in many cases his sentence structure is backwards and the information is jumbled up, where as in modern language everything is in order. I believe that the plays are performed in the original version because it gives the characters more emotion and feelings. Also the dialogue sounds more smooth coming out of the characters mouth. If it was performed with the translated version than many characters would have a monotone way of speaking. Shakespeare’s style is simply more complex and elegant than the translated version.
ReplyDeleteThe translation between Macbeth in Shakespeare’s language and a more modern language is very obvious. I feel like the translator took Shakespeare’s words and killed them. Shakespeare used a lot of comparison’s that made his wording seem a lot more important than the translator’s version. In class we discussed how the translator turned such a serious monologue into a witty little conversation between a man and his conscience. It wasn’t as intense in the modern day form. For example, when Shakespeare said “We’d jump the life to come,” it seemed so much more important than when the translator wrote “I would gladly put my soul and the afterlife at risk…” Shakespeare is just able to make a bigger impact using less words than a modern day writer can using much more words. He had this crazy and talented way of making things seem important just by using certain placement of words and certain literary comparisons.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare's monologue is very different compared to the translated version of said monologue. While it can be harder to read and understand, the actual monologue is more enjoyable to read. The translated version seems very simple, and dumb ed down. Reading the translated version gives you the plot. but that's not why you read Shakespeare. You Shakespeare for the language and the dialogue that Shakespeare is famous for. Reading the original version would benefit any reader way more compared to reading the translated version
ReplyDeleteShakespeare's writing is more of an artwork than a normal piece of literature. Everything he writes flows together like a well crafted painting. He illustrates multiple ideas and combines them into a single thought, a single product. Poetic words construct the worlds he brings us to. So when people begin to try and duplicate his words, but in a more simplistic way, the completed work is never quite as powerful. The stories Shakespeare gives us are interesting and everyone should be able to enjoy them, but the real reason why his writing is so unique is because it sounds so fantastic. It flows, it brings many ideas and molds them together into one, while the duplicated, simple products are straight across and focus on the story more than the value of his work. Its like someone took a magic marker to the mona lisa and made her slight smile more apparent. Sure more people would be able to understand her facial expression, but the magic marker will never compare to the beauty of the creators brush strokes. Its great that we have some way of understanding Shakespeare's words better than we would of, but the duplicate cannot ever replace the original.
ReplyDeleteThe text in the modern translation was bland compared to Shakespeare"s text. Shakespeare used better language and vocabulary. i t is not as clear as the modern translation but it is by far more interest language throughout the piece. shakespears peice had more of a poetic artistic sense to it while the modern times text was boring and had no sense of talent at all. the peice has a flow to it while the moderntimes version was choppy and untastful. i like the words he used and the peice had some motifs in it. i also like how the monologe made you think while the moderntimes was just given to you. the whole purpose of shakespeare's greatness is how he wrote and pieced together his works. his language, his poetic talent, his ability to be meaning 5 differen things in one sentence that apply to the story. translations of old text only has one good thing about it is helping people understand what they read and to know the actual meaning. It does sort of take away the fun trying to figure it out yourself but it is helpful.
ReplyDeleteHi Ally: I got the note from guidance requesting work for you today. Hopefully this gets to you. The students have been writing their in-class essays for the independent reading book over the last few days, so we'll need to arrange time for you to do that when you get back. Otherwise, just make sure that you've responded to the latest blog post. Thanks, Mr. Telles.
DeleteThe translition is very different than the original text. When you read Shakespear, you have to think deeper than you normally would. I think it's better because it pushes you to practice using parts of your skills that you usually wouldn't. Given that the modern text is easier to understand so some people would like it better, you don't really get the full effect on the point that Shakespear was trying to get across. Something that bothered me about the translated edition is that the translater could be completely wrong! What if he didnt mean half of the things that the translator said he did? It's interesting to try to picture everyone talking like the plays, so its good to read conversations like these that are easy to understand. It almost makes you feel closer to the time period. The way Shakespear worded and brought his ideas across is irriplacable, so it's almost painful to read such a boring version of what he was trying to say. I like to use the modern times translation to help me understand what he means, but i also like to interpret what he is saying too because thats half the fun of realing these plays. All around i like the old, original version of this much better than the new version.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we know that the translation is much easier to comprehend than the original work of Shakespeare, Shakespeare original work is used more frequently due to the fact that for many, the way he composes his words and the words he chooses to use makes him unique. Even though his writing is complex, the originality Shakespeare has is far more notable and even genius. With that said, the translation had more of an explanation, adding additional information to get a point across in which I liked. Maybe the translation does go in a slight different direction in than which Shakespeare intended, which is one reason people tend to go for the original piece. For me, my feelings contradict one another, but if I had to choose between Shakespeare organic writing and the translation, I would choose the translation because I like to understand what I am reading. I appreciate understanding more than I do the way he writes. With that said, I favor the translation.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare's language definitely differs from the language we speak today.it differs in mostly the choice of vocabulary. The vocabulary that Shakespeare use to use back in his day is harder for the reader to comprehend. The reader would need to put they're brain in a certain mode and try to dig deeper to find out the real meaning is and what point he is trying to put across. To help us understand Shakespeare when we are having trouble trying understand what he is trying to "display" to us we find it easier to use a translated version. Although it is easier, some people prefer the Shakespeare language. A lot of times this may be, because people like to use their brain and interpret it in they're own way. for the people that are good at it and can put them self in a state of mind like that when reading something that's difficult to there may just come natural to them, which makes it easier on them.
ReplyDelete