Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

What we're reading

Find your new favourite book or recommend one on our Book forum.

Shakespeare - but rewritten so I can understand!

50 replies

LifeInAHamsterWheel · 25/03/2025 21:51

I studied a few Shakespeare plays in school and enjoyed them but found it a slog to work through the language. I'd love to enjoy the stories without having to "work" to understand them. Are there any books that still have the story but have been rewritten in a more modern format? I don't mean the whole story has been updated to suit our modern world, really just the language/style of writing. Or would that be utter blasphemy?!

OP posts:
fluffiphlox · 26/03/2025 07:26

The RSC website carries synopses of the plays (or certainly used to).

Sinkintotheswamp · 26/03/2025 07:28

Try kids versions and the BBC bitesize podcasts.

Sgtmajormummy · 26/03/2025 07:29

@latetothefisting
We had a family discussion the other day about periodically updating translations of foreign literature (DD was not enjoying a recommended archaic English version of Don Quixote). They can be sympathetically rendered into modern language, sure, but let’s leave the original to be studied intact.

kublacant · 26/03/2025 07:34

The Hollow Crown BBC series is week worth a watch. Also Ian McKellan’s film of Richard III is great.

the National Theatre has NT at Home where you can watch some filmed performances - you can pay per play for most of them.

Moglet4 · 26/03/2025 07:40

You sound like you’re looking for No Fear Shakespeare. The original text is on the right hand page and the left hand page is in modern English

AstonishedWaiting · 26/03/2025 07:48

latetothefisting · 26/03/2025 00:04

a) the language is hardly "most" of the point - every other 16c play had the exact same language if you're solely talking about the grammatical archaisms, it's the plot, characters, symbolism, turns of phrase, historical interpretation, etc that are why Shakespeare's plays have endured

b) the exceptionality of Shakespeare's 'language' is in the flow, the rhythm, the metaphors, the colourful insults, the thousands of new words and terms Shakespeare coined or at least popularised, the imagery, etc. None of which would be affected by changing art to are.

c) If you think Shakespeare is only worth anything when written in the exact same words he originally penned, presumably you don't see the point in translations into other languages (not only for Shakespeare but for any literary work ever)? As they are never going to keep the exact language and grammar, but focus instead (as much as possible) on retaining what they can of the types of language in point b)

The reason I go to see Shakespeare is for the language, yes. It’s all the point as far as I’m concerned. You can see a disappointing production, but the language still sings. I don’t see the need to tinker with it. And I’ve seen a fair bit of Shakespeare in French, and a couple of plays in Italian translation (Rome, weirdly, has a replica Globe in the Borghese Gardens), and it doesn’t really work, though obviously it’s good for non-English speakers to get some sense of his work. Some work translates better than others, and some languages go better into others. If I want to read Olga Tokarczuk, I have to read her in translation because I don’t read Polish, so it’s not that I think literary translation is pointless, but some types of work pass into another language more easily, and/or have a great translator.

TwoLeftSocksWithHoles · 26/03/2025 08:03

AstonishedWaiting · 25/03/2025 21:59

Yes, but I’ve always thought they were godawful. I mean, you read Shakespeare for the poetry, and the Lambs’ versions take it all out, meaning you’re left with ‘Indecisive man sees ghost and feigns madness while trying to decide to murder his uncle’ and ‘Teenagers from feuding clans fall in love and die’.

Admittedly, I’ve no better suggestions!

That's sounds like it could be a good synopsis of, I guess, Hamlet, and I think that's all I need to know!

Could you please summarise some others for me, thanks?😉

CaptainMyCaptain · 26/03/2025 08:19

myplace · 25/03/2025 21:53

The classic used to be Lamb’s Tales. That was where you went to get the story, to help understand before you watch the play.

Then watch the play.

Then read the play!

Lamb's tales had all the rude funny bits cut out. I remember when we had a group of actors come to school (would be Year 9 now) and realising that it was hilariously funny rather than tedious and boring.

In my opinion you lose a lot when you modernise the language. reading the original text you will see how many commonly used words and phrase were actually coined by Shakespeare.

Don't read it though - watch the plays, WATCH THE PLAYS! It wasn't written to be read it was written to be listened top and watched.

CaptainMyCaptain · 26/03/2025 08:23

aliceinawonderland · 25/03/2025 23:57

@latetothefisting "Romeo, Romeo, why then are you Romeo?

I'm sorry...this is nothing like as beautiful as "wherefore art thou"

Totally agree.

FizzingAda · 26/03/2025 09:10

I was blessed with a wonderful English teacher (who studied under Tolkien), she explained all the obscure references and meanings in the language, and brought it all to life, so we understood exactly what all the subtle nuances were. Gave me a lifelong love of Shakespeare, bless her memory.

Rowena191 · 26/03/2025 10:11

Look out for National Theatre Live shows at the cinema. I've seen quite a few Shakespeare plays this way and it's been a very good experience, almost as good as live theatre, and if you don't live in London or Stratford, much easier to get to.

Londonmummy66 · 26/03/2025 10:15

Maybe read a synopsis of the plot from a study guide - York notes or similar? Midsummer Night's Dream is usually a good one to start with and once you have got your head around the plot the Rupert Everett film is a good one to watch (and utterly beautiful).

Talipesmum · 26/03/2025 10:19

Another vote for the Leon Garfield retellings. They’re well written, and use select pieces of dialogue where there’s speech. They’re not so short that it misses loads out.

https://amzn.eu/d/f8CkCwV

Dappy777 · 26/03/2025 15:18

myplace · 25/03/2025 21:53

The classic used to be Lamb’s Tales. That was where you went to get the story, to help understand before you watch the play.

Then watch the play.

Then read the play!

Yes, people used to read this to their kids to prepare them for the real thing. Not a bad idea.

There is zero point in reading a modern translation, unless you do so as preparation. The genius of Shakespeare is in the language. Take that away and you’re left with often quite silly, even unpleasant stories. Everything flows from the language. The characters themselves are built out of the language. Falstaff has a very different way of speaking to Hamlet, and King Lear speaks a different English to Macbeth. Either wrestle with the original language or don’t bother.

In fact, the same goes for all great writers. Imagine P G Wodehouse re-written in modern English! Or think of Dickens. His novels would be tedious as hell if it weren’t for his language. Imagine Mr Micawber or Joe Gargery speaking in modern slang. All the great writers, from Chaucer to Jane Austen, from George Eliot to Virginia Woolf are great because of the language itself. Even a writer like George Orwell, who is famous because he doesn’t dress up his language would still be unreadable if you re-wrote his essays. The pleasure comes from that distinct, crystal clear style.

myplace · 26/03/2025 15:57

Given what amazing versions are available on film, I’d consider picking a play, watching several versions of it then reading it.

I saw one during lockdown with Olivia Coleman as Malvolio, Olivia’s butler/agent in Twelfth Night (I think). It was excellent and she brought a new dimension to the story.

SuperMarioSuperMario · 26/03/2025 16:08

This guy can help you out 😆

m.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPGV0TvdiI&pp=ygUWb3RoZWxsbyBSaWNoYXJkIGZyYW5rcw%3D%3D

HughGrantsfurrysquirrel · 26/03/2025 20:13

Look up "NO FEAR SHAKESPEARE" on Amazon. Brilliant. Good selection of Shakespeare plays, all with a modern translation alongside.

Talipesmum · 26/03/2025 20:54

Dappy777 · 26/03/2025 15:18

Yes, people used to read this to their kids to prepare them for the real thing. Not a bad idea.

There is zero point in reading a modern translation, unless you do so as preparation. The genius of Shakespeare is in the language. Take that away and you’re left with often quite silly, even unpleasant stories. Everything flows from the language. The characters themselves are built out of the language. Falstaff has a very different way of speaking to Hamlet, and King Lear speaks a different English to Macbeth. Either wrestle with the original language or don’t bother.

In fact, the same goes for all great writers. Imagine P G Wodehouse re-written in modern English! Or think of Dickens. His novels would be tedious as hell if it weren’t for his language. Imagine Mr Micawber or Joe Gargery speaking in modern slang. All the great writers, from Chaucer to Jane Austen, from George Eliot to Virginia Woolf are great because of the language itself. Even a writer like George Orwell, who is famous because he doesn’t dress up his language would still be unreadable if you re-wrote his essays. The pleasure comes from that distinct, crystal clear style.

I see what you are saying, but if the language is inaccessible to a reader then where do they start? I can’t read the original Greek but still enjoy a good modern translation of the Odyssey. I can’t read French or Russian but will still enjoy reading les miserables or War and Peace. Where’s the cut off? First version of The Count of Monte Cristo I engaged with was an abridged retelling of the story. Later I read it properly (in English translation). When I studied the Canterbury Tales I first read a more modern translation to understand what was going on. I then alternated between the two till the language settled for me and I could understand and enjoy and appreciate the original.

I would venture that most people who go to see a Shakespeare play already know the story, one way or another. So asking to read more modern translations, to understand what’s going on, is a good idea to reengage. It’s a little patronising to imply that modern retellings are only of use “to read to kids” to prepare them for the real thing. What if an adult is trying to reengage? She’s said she finds the language too hard to understand by just reading it. Should she just give it up as a bad job? I think this is a sensible question and everyone is starting somewhere. Totally get you on the beauty and importance of the language. But to say “Either wrestle with the original language or don’t bother.” is not helpful in my opinion.

LaPalmaLlama · 26/03/2025 21:07

SuperMarioSuperMario · 26/03/2025 16:08

You beat me to it. The DC absolutely love his Shakespeare stuff- he does a really good Frankenstein as well.

MsAmerica · 27/03/2025 01:20

LifeInAHamsterWheel · 25/03/2025 22:59

I read a lot which is why I was hoping to "read" the stories but of course I never thought of watching the plays! I'm not in UK but will suss out any upcoming performances in nearby cities and I might be lucky. Thanks everyone.

Oh, I hope you do. I remember being required to read Shakespeare in school (basically Romeo & Juliet across the board), but because of the complexity of the language, it often become much clearer (and funnier) when performed.

And I hope you know there are some excellent filmed versions.

CaptainMyCaptain · 27/03/2025 11:33

Talipesmum · 26/03/2025 20:54

I see what you are saying, but if the language is inaccessible to a reader then where do they start? I can’t read the original Greek but still enjoy a good modern translation of the Odyssey. I can’t read French or Russian but will still enjoy reading les miserables or War and Peace. Where’s the cut off? First version of The Count of Monte Cristo I engaged with was an abridged retelling of the story. Later I read it properly (in English translation). When I studied the Canterbury Tales I first read a more modern translation to understand what was going on. I then alternated between the two till the language settled for me and I could understand and enjoy and appreciate the original.

I would venture that most people who go to see a Shakespeare play already know the story, one way or another. So asking to read more modern translations, to understand what’s going on, is a good idea to reengage. It’s a little patronising to imply that modern retellings are only of use “to read to kids” to prepare them for the real thing. What if an adult is trying to reengage? She’s said she finds the language too hard to understand by just reading it. Should she just give it up as a bad job? I think this is a sensible question and everyone is starting somewhere. Totally get you on the beauty and importance of the language. But to say “Either wrestle with the original language or don’t bother.” is not helpful in my opinion.

Shakespeare is in English though - not much different from reading something written in, say, a Geordie or a Glasgow accent so not at all like reading Russian or French. I recently read a novel set in Ireland and had to look up some words, it didn't spoil my enjoyment

LifeInAHamsterWheel · 27/03/2025 12:54

CaptainMyCaptain · 27/03/2025 11:33

Shakespeare is in English though - not much different from reading something written in, say, a Geordie or a Glasgow accent so not at all like reading Russian or French. I recently read a novel set in Ireland and had to look up some words, it didn't spoil my enjoyment

To be fair, it's not English as we know it now (or have known it for the last century even!)

Years ago I read "Trainspotting" and was well able to follow it. Shakespeare is no comparison!

OP posts:
CaptainMyCaptain · 27/03/2025 18:11

Maybe I'm just more used to Shakespeare than some dialects.

AllProperTeaIsTheft · 27/03/2025 18:25

latetothefisting · 25/03/2025 22:27

Shakespeare instantly becomes at least 20% more comprehensible when the 'thy/thou/thee/thine are replaced with you/yours. I honestly don't know why most productions don't do so - it's the same number of syllables so the lines still scan the same, and 'you' was also used in the 16thc (thou etc was just the singular/informal version, like ti/chi in welsh or tu/vous in french, which is a distinction we don't mark in english today) so it wouldn't sound anachronistic. Same with art/are.

"Romeo, Romeo, why then are you Romeo? Deny your father and refuse your name," still scans exactly the same way, is still rhythmically poetic and dramatic rather than overly prosaic as fully modernised/simplified translations can be but is much easier to understand!

But if you know what 'thou' and 'thy' mean, why is it confusing?

tobee · 21/04/2025 21:42

I read Judi Dench's book Shakespeare - The Man Who Pays the Rent. It was excellent at helping me begin to understand the plays in performance - which is what they were intended to be - and really made me want to see more Shakespeare. The book happens to be very funny in parts too. And is presented as a conversation between two actors who have much studied Shakespeare. And their job is to give meaning to their audience.

Really the best thing I find is to not be intimidated by the language, to know that the plays were written over 400 years ago and to relax, and realise you will attune your ear.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page