Over the years, Shakespeare has been transformed and adapted in many different ways and has come to be seen as the epitome of high art and culture. Yet many people find themselves so utterly bored or bewildered by the strange words used in traditional Shakespearean plays, leaving a few disappointed theatergoers, “The clouds methought would open and show riches / Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked / I cried to dream again” (The Tempest III.ii.130-138). What is the true cause of this misunderstanding and confusion? I, myself, venture to the theater hoping for some great awareness to come falling down upon me, yet I leave oblivious to the meanings of the play, meanings that go further then the famous, “To be, or not to be” of Hamlet. McWhorter confronts these issues in Word on the Street, explaining a number of different reasons as to why people explain why modern Americans cannot understand or fully appreciate Shakespeare.
One argument brought forth is that Americans just don’t perform Shakespearean plays like a British actor can. It is believed that English with a British accent is just simply better and more intelligible because it is in a higher standard of English. McWhorter believes, however, “that this idea stems more from the American delight in the British accent, and the lingering inferiority complex we have in relation to Europe” (91). It is quite true that Americans today view those with an English accent as the ‘top-notch’ of society, who best to perform such sacred pieces of art?
Yet this brings up the prospect of the actor’s skill, requiring a “well-honed acting technique” (92). This theory using a flick of the wrist or maybe a wily look at the audience might bring sudden comprehension. So now we’ve narrowed down the list of available people to perform Shakespeare: they must be British and ‘well-honed’. McWhorter counters, “No amount of raised eyebrows, bell-jingling, or trained pigeons could coax “The cod-piece that will house / Before the head has any, / The head and he shall louse; / So beggars marry many” (King Lear) into understanding.
The last point made for why Americans have no grasp of Shakespeare is the “falling educational standards and the marginalization of theater by movies and television” (McWhorter 93). Americans are just too far below the intelligence of 16th century England, they simply cannot grasp this higher form of literature unless it is dumbed-down to an Ethan Hawke or Mel Gibson version. “The common consensus seems to be that what makes Shakespearean language so challenging is that the language is highly “literary” or “poetic,” that our quiet sense of it as an obligation rather than as genuine pleasure is due to our innate laziness, and that understanding the plays is simply a matter of putting forth a certain effort” (94).
No longer must you be just British and ‘well-honed’ to perform Shakespeare, but only those willing to take upon the chore of learning a play’s background and study 16th century English are able to coherently intelligent enough to apply the knowledge. What does all of this add up to? A mind-dulling experience in which you are required homework before a nice bit of entertainment after a long day’s work. No wonder so many Americans drift to sleep, there are so many things required just to partake in a little bit of Shakespeare!
These reasons, no matter how well-meaning, seem to me absolutely irrelevant to the true cause as to why Americans have such trouble understanding the Shakespearean language. “No, the problem with Shakespeare for modern audiences is not that the language is simply highbrow, […] The problem is simply one of eternal, blasted language change” (97). Language changes over time, stemming from parent languages that evolve into daughter languages. Word meanings change, sometimes imperceptively, over lifetimes. Such is the case with the language used within Shakespeare. Words have changed meanings over time and these language evolutions have made English the way that it is today.
McWhorter argues that we shouldn’t just do away with the originals of Shakespeare into new, translated versions, but “the originals should occupy roughly the place in education and dissemination that the original Chaucer does today, […] the original texts would be kept alive at universities” (112). I do not feel in accord with this view, that we should stow away Shakespeare’s work to a university where only a select few can subscribe to. With the translation amounts of the original culture and significance of the piece is lost. I feel most strongly that there should be a modernized version along with the exact wordings of the plays. As to most everything, there are two sides to every story -or in this case every play. I am not totally against a translation, to the contrary, I am quite for it. A translation, if done most meticulously and loyally, changing the meanings that have most changed; therefore leading the viewer or reader to a wrong assumption.
Our culture is quite a different one than that of 16th century England, and yet many things are still prevalent. With a translation of Hamlet, for example, it would no longer be an arduous task to sit through the play. Instead a modern-speaking American could realize the intrigue of a murdered king; the murderer marrying his wife, a son Hell-bent on revenge on all those in-league with his new stepfather. Murder, revenge, romance? Sounds like what’s in the movie theater’s right this very moment. Yet with the untranslated version, most Americans have no idea what Hamlet’s soulful “to be or not to be” speech is about. Keeping the texts in two versions, one in modern English, the other in it’s original form will keep the culture and help understanding. I feel that both versions should be placed on equal footing, one not outdoing the other -for in essence they are the one and the same.
Source:
John McWhorter. Word on the Street. New York: Basic Books, 1998.
