tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6603679039105191267.post7969754140636257119..comments2013-09-08T18:04:38.628-04:00Comments on The Merry/Fringe Project: Notes on Re-Editing Shakespeare for the Modern Reader: PrologueTony Tambascohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11834541469560452051noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6603679039105191267.post-90534716269388799862010-08-31T18:20:10.306-04:002010-08-31T18:20:10.306-04:00Thank you for contributing to the Merry Fringe blo...Thank you for contributing to the Merry Fringe blog. I agree with you, in principle, that Shakespeare is open to all forms of emendation and adaptation "as long as editors warn readers that they are doing so." Still, it is important for editors and adapters to be rigorous in their work, and admit potential variations and uncertainties as they occur. This is ultimately the argument that Wells is making, and I happen to agree with it. <br /><br />This is where I start to question your work on the modern verse translations you are working on at the moment. In Macbeth, for example, in your online excerpt, you have highlighted a number of verse lines as prose, which could more properly be set as shared lines. This package is the one to which I am specifically referring:<br /><br />LADY MACBETH<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />MACBETH<br /><br />Wait!—The next room, who’s in it?<br /><br />LADY MACBETH<br /><br />Donalbain.<br /><br />MACBETH<br /><br />[Looking at his hands] This is a sorry sight.<br /><br />Since I think you would agree that most editors would choose to set this passage as shared lines of verse, alerting your readers to this difference would create a greater sense of transparency in your work. I think that is what Wells is getting at, at least.Tony Tambascohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11834541469560452051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6603679039105191267.post-71198115468487464932010-08-31T01:15:12.260-04:002010-08-31T01:15:12.260-04:00Shakespeare has long been in the public domain, so...Shakespeare has long been in the public domain, so any amount of editing, emending, translating and rewriting is appropriate as long as editors warn readers that they are doing so. Slightly glossed editions, heavily glossed editions, highly edited and emended editions, and complete translations should all be welcome without sparking controversy or prompting apologies. All these versions are legitimate entrepreneurial efforts taken to meet the needs of different readers. Those who adapt, tweak, or translate Shakespeare for the modern reader do not need the approval of top scholars and do not need to defend what they are doing. Readers can decide from among the many choices available what they feel is the best way to enjoy Shakespeare. Some will even opt to read Shakespeare in a foreign language translation if the English language editions are too challenging. <br /><br />I have been writing verse translations of Shakespeare for many years and am currently working on Julius Caesar (you can read excerpts of my work at http://www.fullmeasurepress.com). As I work, I surround myself with eleven different editions and four dictionaries. Some are more useful than others for my purposes, but all of them seem legitimate, despite their differences, and each fills a niche in the Shakespeare marketplace. Rather than argue that this or that level of emendation is appropriate, let’s encourage every level of emendation and adaptation.<br /><br />Kent RichmondUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13713201699582802948noreply@blogger.com