🚀 go-pugleaf

"Comm" <no@spam.com> wrote:
>Oh, you really stepped in it this time, LMAO - see in.
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message 
>news:5908f154gtdip5hqnr8g4kv9jhoe4875dc@4ax.com...
>> "Comm" <no@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>>And you are telling me that NONE of his plays were dubbed or done in 
>>>French?
>>>German?  Italian? Japanese? or other languages?
>>
>> When they are, they are considered inferior.
>
>INFERIOR?  Uh, and by whom are they branded Inferior?

By people who have the language skill allowing them the 
choice to read the translation or the original.

>By whom?  I'm not 
>really asking a question here.  I'm being 100% sarcastic.  INFERIOR, hey? 
>The fact is, his plays have never BEEN done that way  - the way I said. 
>Somehow or other, they manage to muck it all up by changing the damned plot 
>and action.

Based on what you say below, there seem to be two issues here.  One is
the claim that the plays are not translated into modern (or foreign)
language, and the other is that the plays are not *performed* in
modern (or foreign) language translation.

http://www.kith.org/logos/words/upper3/FFFardels.html
addresses some of the problems with producing a quality translation -
idiom and puns and wordplay and sound quality are difficult to
preserve in translation, and the shelf-life of a "modern" translation
is about one generation whereas the originals are immortal.

I suspect that if a writer is skilled enough to do a quality
translation, s/he is probably too skilled to be satisfied to merely do
so.  For the same or probably more money, and for greatly increased
esteem from peers and society, s/he can produce a new play.  While
quality translation is difficult, people who pay the bills don't see
it as being as difficult as the cost/time/expertise actually required
to do a good job turns out to be.  So they'll ask how good a
translation they can get for $X, and the answer will be "not good
enough to attract an audience".

>> It is possible to find Shakespeare where all the words are translated
>> into modern English.
>> http://www.shakespeare2000.com/
>> http://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/
>>
>> and many others.
>
>I don't want to read it (again),  Bob.  I want to WATCH it.  Big difference 
>there.  Some people, especially innately analytical readers, have a very 
>hard time "picturing" when they read a text.  I have a hard time.  I can 
>read about 3 big (how big? compared to what?) ships going to some island. 
>Fine.  I can't SEE 3 big ships going to an island.  I can't SEE the island, 
>either.  What I am asking for is very very simple.

And this is other issue - not translation, but performance.  Around
here, professional theater productions cost $25-$100 per seat, and the
bottom line is that the professional theater producers don't think
that they can get an audience willing to fill the theater at those
prices to pay for what the actors AND the producers recognize will be
faux Shakespeare.  It doesn't suit their artistic muse, and there
isn't enough market for professional Shakespeare in the first place,
either on the performer side or the audience side.  Even Shakespeare
Festival theater groups generally only put on a few of the bard's
plays each year, adding other quality plays to the repertoire to bring
the audience to buy season tickets, and to keep the actors satisfied
as well.  Professional actors won't be satisfied with a mediocre
translation, and even a good translation won't attract the audience
that the original attracts at the same prices.

At which point you look at amateur theater.  School dramas are going
to focus on the originals because their purposes is more education
than entertainment, and independent theater groups are looking to
entertain their unpaid actors as much as their audience - and those
unpaid actors aren't motivated to perform faux Shakespeare when they
can do the real thing.

If you think that I am wrong, and that there is a market niche for
performing a quality (or non-quality) modern translation of
Shakespeare, by all means go for it.

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org