Is there essentially anything wrong with reading simplified/ modernized versions of classic literature?

Question

Im in AP12 English and my goodness are the books and poems we read here difficult, not the contents but the actual wording. I know you're technically supposes to read the works "as is" but is there any real difference compared to reading a modernized (language wise not modernizing the story) version of that same work? I mean Shakespeare was a funky dude don't get me wrong, but we are not in 1400s England and we speak absolutely nothing like they did. Saying we have to read Shakespeare the exact same as it is written is like saying we have to read the Iliad and the Odyssey in ancient Greek. I see no real merit in reading Macbeth in Shakespearean and barely grasping what's going on over reading Macbeth in modern English. Am I being a lazy potato or am I onto something?

Answer 1

Big difference , simplified and modern versions are someone's interpretation and in many cases do not convey the real meaning of the passages.

Answer 2

.

Answer 3

You're being lazy.



You're missing an appreciation of the English language and different cultures - things an advanced English class should expose you to. Learning is going beyond what you're comfortable with and what is easy. Life shouldn't be about making things easy, finding short cuts, being entertained or just getting by. Expanding your understanding, challenging yourself, trying to see something from someone else's perspective, learning how to struggle through something and come out the other end are important life skills to have (even if you never read Shakespeare again).



For example, if you play a sport you might do sit-ups as part of training. You'll never do sit-ups in the middle of a game, but they help train your muscles. Skipping it will make you a lesser athlete and won't help your team.



Your choices aren't take a short-cut or not understand the text. How about working to understand the text and then seeking additional help when necessary? Step up to the challenge!

Answer 4

I'm a lazy potato as well and luckily I was never asked to read Shakespeare in school.



That said, I do believe that you will miss out on nuances if you read only the simplified/modernized versions. I see it all the time - for myself when I study the Vøluspa, where there are so many versions and very few that are 100% true to the original old Norse.



Or just take the bible. Some time ago I stumbled across a site that had the King James' version, the English Revised version, and a Danish version of Esau 34:14 (the verse about Lilith) - all very different from each other, so out of curiosity I managed to find someone who could read the original and translate it word for word and it turned out the Danish version was the closest to the original, but still not 100%.



Basically there's a reason why people interested in the Greek tragedies (those I did read) learn Greek or those interested in Søren Kierkegaard learn Danish.



Can you wing it in school reading just the simplified/modernized versions? Maybe. My husband did get passing grades by doing so (he also watched movie versions), but my suggestion is to ace it by doing both. Read the simplified/modernized version to get a better grasp of the story and then read the actual thing - that way it'll be easier/faster to read and you'll get the most out of it.

Answer 5

Of course.

You're reading a version written for idiots, by idiots.



Homer wrote in a different language, Shakespeare made our language what it is today.



This isn't like reading Beowulf in the original (something I recommend you at least try,)

Answer 6

HUGE difference, but you can read both. I recently decided to read Shakespeare's Richard III for fun and discussion purposes with my chat group. But my goodness, it's a play, not a real book. However, I read Ian McKellen's script and notes, and it was fascinating. I ran out of motivation to read the play, but I did go back and the opening was a lot more meaningful. I now feel I can go back someday (maybe next week) and read the play as it is written.



Use the simplified or modernized version as a warm-up, then read the real thing. It also helps to read commentary about the real thing, and to read the real thing two times -- once before you dive into commentary, and once after. Commentary includes stuff like Cliff Notes.



It's probably QUICKER to just read the classic. But it's much more meaningful to take your time and know what you are doing, and discussing the story with other humans just adds more depth to your experience.

Answer 7

It can lose important structural nuances when converted to modern English, which is part of what the class is meant to teach, but you can generally do well enough reading modernized versions and you're unlikely to use that knowledge later anyway. So you'll be less cultured than people who make it through the original text, but do you really care?

Answer 8

Shakespeare did not live in the 1400s. And there's quite a difference between reading texts that were written in forms of English with which you are not well accustomed and reading texts written in other languages, so that's a very poor analogy. One of the reasons why modern English - especially the casual and colloquial forms of modern English, have become so base and crude is that people are content to abandon the very beautiful, extremely descriptive and incredibly useful vocabulary items that people used in the past. Even reading letters written by relatively uneducated people from 50 years ago one can see clearly how much has been lost. There are quite a few Shakespeare editions where the original text appears on the left and a modern translation appears on the right. Some are actually done quite well.

Answer 9

Once in class we read a version of Macbeth where it had a modernized version next to it for reference so we would know what's going on and would stay a little more engaged in the story. There isn't anything really wrong with reading the modern version so you can understand it, because you’re still analyzing the importance and creativity of his work, but at the same time make sure you are absorbing what you need from the original, because some things are always lost even in the best translation.

Answer 10

No, you are not lazy. In fact, managing your time is smart. Unless you're teaching English Lit, these classes will have little to no application in your life. Sure, it's nice to know and be knowledgeable, but it's fine to get the general idea. Focus on practical classes that apply in the work world.

Answer 11

Yes. If you read the actual text you might know, for instance, that Shakespeare was born in the late 16th century and writing into the early 17th, not a hundred years before, so he was writing in early modern English and there is very little real difference between his language and the one we speak today.

It's not a question of being lazy, but of missing the entire point of the class. You are not reading Shakespeare's plays for the sake of the plots but *for* the language.and the characterisation which is expressed in that language. And no, Shakespeare did not set out to write a 'real book' - a novel perhaps? - and found himself tragically unable to write anything but dialogue, he wrote a play. There are numerous versions of this play available on film - perhaps the best way into the text would be to watch it in performance, making notes of anything which is really incomprehensible and look that up afterwards.

Or, if you feel you are getting no pleasure or information from the texts you are given in class, perhaps - give up the class, if you can. I cannot bear to think of Shakespeare's works (and anything else you are studying) being inflicted on young people as a penance instead of the pleasure they should be