I had to read Romeo and Juliet for school but I have already read it. One of my friends had this Romeo and Juliet book that was one of those “translated to modern English versions”, but it was translated into Gen Z slang as a gimmick. I actually started reading it and NGL it was entertaining to read with all of the language these kids actually speak today. It was a little over the top and obnoxious but obviously on purpose. My first thought was this just ruins the whole point of studying Shakespeare, he would turn in his grave if he heard this. Then I couldn’t stop reading it and laughing as it’s actually a pretty decent translation of the original. I actually understand parts of the story that I didn’t before. Just curious about others opinions with this. Is it sacrilegious to do this with Shakespeare? lol! Or is it more about the story and less about the beauty in the original words? Thoughts?
by Ok-Equipment64
23 Comments
Parodies are wonderful. One of my favorite books of all-time is “Bored of the Rings” from the founders of National Lampoon. I would see updated language, societal mores and characterizations in the same vein.
I think it is a great idea!
An English class is going to want you to read the original, but read what you want for fun.
Shakespeare would be perfectly fine with updated versions of his plays. I think he would like it, actually! His plays were for common people, he created slang words. He’d be into it.
Every single generation has done the same thing to Shakespeare (look at school plays). It’s done so much you will surprised how many movies you’ve seen based on Shakespeare, especially teen movies. So, yes, it’s ok.
You studying the language so you can fully understand the context of the jokes and things Shakespeare is contemporarily referencing. Plus, he was a fantastic wordsmith so reading his original texts is a delight. Shakespeare version of english is so old it’s effectively a different language in English. Which is way you understood it better when your modern slang.
EDIT: I went to high school/college when doing Hip-Hop versions of Shakespeare was the popular thing to do.
A way to get your hand on a modern translation of Shakespeare is to read it in whatever language that is not English. People made serious translations of Shakespeare to other languages, and those translations typically use more contemporary language, because they were made in 19th or 20th century (or even 21st), and not during Shakespeare’s time.
Based on my knowledge of Shakespeare, I’m pretty sure he’d love this. Dude was not high and mighty; his work was full of sex jokes and he invented tons of words, including slang.
Art is transformative. The artist owns the art up until the point they share it, once it is loose in the world it’s free to be interpreted and reimagined as the reader sees fit.
I feel like it depends on why you’re doing it and what you get from it. It’s like I have two different opinions that don’t agree at all, at the same time.
One of them says that there’s nothing wrong with having fun, reminds me that one of my favorite film adaptations of Shakespeare (Private Romeo) has modern slang in it at times, and if it helps you understand it, why not? Most of us use the footnotes at the bottom of the page from time to time, is there a difference?
The other part of me shakes its head sadly. Because you really don’t read Shakespeare just for the story – with a lot of the plays, trust me, it’s like opera, it’s *really* not the story that’s so gripping – and because the pure unbelievable beauty of the language is part of what you come to love with Shakespeare *but only if you try.* The first play you ever read by Shakespeare can be uphill, lots and lots of references to the footnotes, but by the second or third play you start reading right through, and suddenly a whole world is open – you can read plays by Marlowe. You can read The Worm Ouroboros that helped inspire Lord of the Rings. And I think of all the books and plays that are shut off for my students because their vocabularies are so impoverished and because they don’t ever make the effort to expand them.
Plus, does it work? I mean, you can’t translate “now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York” and get all three meanings packed in. You can’t. And translating “the bawdy hand of the dial is now on the prick of noon” is going to be what, “hey, those old-fashioned clocks, the dial kinda looks like a dick at noon, amirite?” Urgh.
(Also, if someone’s asked you what time it is, you’re just going to sound like a pervert.)
And I think of my friends and I in high school who were just for some reason entirely entranced by asking each other – “do you bite your thumb at me, sir?” “No. *But I do bite my thumb.*” I mean, what’s the point of translating it? Why not just read something modern…
As you like it. All’s well that ends well…
People have been making modern language and culturally shifted versions of Shakespeare for decades, if not more.
It’s not sacrilege, and it’s often pretty funny.
I think you lose a lot of what’s great about Shakespeare when you do this, but there isn’t any harm in it per se.
1. Simplified Shakespeare can definitely be a useful tool. It helps you untangle writing that uses grammar and terms from another era.
2. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making it funny, either. There’s plenty of lowbrow humor in Shakespeare. And honestly a witty turn of phrase can help an idea ‘stick’ better.
3. Even if you’re not using it as a learning guide, Shakespeare predates copywrite, and would have seen nothing wrong with someone copying his plays and making money by re-tooling them for a different audience. It probably wouldn’t have changed his opinion of his audience (his work suggests he knew they appreciated accessible, low-brow jokes).
Many of Shakespeare’s plays were actually retellings of far older stories: *Titus Andronicus*, *A Midsummer Night’s Dream* and even *Romeo and Juliet* are retellings of stories that Shakespeare lifted directly from Ovid’s *Metamorphoses*.
In fact, the origin story of the star-crossed lovers (*Pyramus and Thisbe*) was originally set in Babylon, not the city of Verona as we now associate it with.
So no, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with modernising these tales because that’s what the tradition is. In fact, the word “tradition” comes from the Latin *tra dare* meaning “to give”. It’s yours to do with how you please!
Shakespeare is everywhere and tons of movie plots are retellings of Shakespeare’s plays: 10 Things I Hate About You is based on Taming of the Shrew. West Side Story is Romeo and Juliet. The Lion King is basically Hamlet with some nice tunes. She’s the Man is basically Twelfth Night. There’s plenty more out there, to be sure. It’s a time honored tradition to retell Shakespeare’s plays in modern settings with modern language.
I love this! And I agree Shakespeare would love it too.
I think it’s a good idea to translate all the slang, but it would somewhat defeat the point if you introduced that first. You should do it after you’ve gotten people at least partially into the ‘oh wow, this is just people insulting each other in funny ways and really we aren’t dissimilar at all’. Also like, an appendix does pretty well, and the meanings might be a bit off.
(I’ve only read Romeo and Juliet)
Hey! Do you know where I can find this version? I want to read it, ha
Something that people hate to hear here is that reading in schools is not there for you to love books, but to develop critical reading skills. The harder the book you have to analyze, the better your critical reading skills get.
Dumbing dows classics should not be done, but not because it is sacrilegious, but because it fundamentally negates the reason why reading is there in the first place.
It would be like trying to dumb down math. Sure, it would be more fun, but at the long run it would cripple you academically.
The thing is, in modern times we hold Shakespeare up as this cultured literary god, but in reality during his own time time what he wrote was full of raunchy humor meant for the lower classes. His pleasure were full of words he made up, dirty humor, and having bears chase characters off stage for literally no reason. He would probably be pretty happy with a trashy modern adaptation rather than the stuffy stuck up stuff that so many people think it is.
Having grown up on Lion King and Romeo +Juliet, I’m all for it. Shakespeare was an author of his time, trying to entertain people of his time. He probably got criticized for playing off of the classic authors too.
I will say that seeing Shakespeare performed in the original language is thrilling. The poetry and humor come alive. The old language that we couldn’t seem to understand in English class became hilarious and moving. I’m glad our teacher dragged us downtown to see Hamlet and The Lion King back to back weeks.
The dudes’ dead, you can do whatever you want. What’s he going to do, rise from the grave and complain?
A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet – no cap”
You mean how to write Shakespeare for gen z, without ChatGPT?
It’s fun to read a translation.
Shakespeare wasn’t an author who only wrote serious things, his plays (even the dramas) are full of innuendo and sly asides. Translating them to make kids today understand that is worthwhile, I think. It’s also worthwhile to read the original, for the flow. But a good translation can be as good as the original.