NEWS: Chaucer: To be bigger than Eminem?

Sick said:

bravhrt said:

Sick said:

topaz said:
[spoiler added to control length]

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

In Rhode Island there is a theatre company doing an educational program called "From The Bard to the Bounce: A Hip-Hop and Shakespeare Experience" and apparently it's pretty fabulous. Although that particular program uses Shakespeares words I think that rephrasing the classics in a modern way was exactly what Shakespeare did. He used classic tales, myths, legends, and fables and rewrote them in his own words and put his own spin on the story. And the productions were ALWAYS in the 'modern" dress of the day. Obviously we can't pick up the phone to call him but I think that he would be quite pleased with these concepts. I don't know enough about Chaucer to have an opinion on this one though (despite having read Canterbury tales in 10th grade I have almost no memory of it).

When you get right now to it, most literature is nothing more than an author casting his own spin on classic tales, myths, legends, and fables; the esteemed Joseph Cambell spent his life studying the phenomenon. What makes one book different from another is in the specifics of how a particular author does this - language, emphasis, development, etc. That's what makes Shakespeare Shakespeare, or Chaucer Chaucer.

If one going to take someone else's recasting of these elements and change them further, modernize them, and all the rest, one might as well try to come up with something original; that is just recast the original myth material one's self, rather than change another's adaptation.

Having worked in the non-profit performing arts/education sector for over 12 years has given me a very strong opinion on this matter. topaz is absolutley correct with the analysis of Shakespeare. W.S. drew most of the plotlines from existing myths, legends, or actual history, and re-contextualized them into a very modern version (for his day and age). He was considered a revolutionary and avant-garde artist in his day, and many of his works were initially blasted with criticism for being "irreverent".
This story is not about "dumbing the work down" so that kids don't ever have to read the original text. It is also not about "replacing" classic works with short and modernized versions. The point is to bring art and literature and creative expression into the schools, and to get kids excited, at an early age, about the arts. Anyone who has worked in the public school system in the last 10 years knows how much the arts have suffered. Funding has been slashed, and the arts budgets are always the first to go. In the USA, completely ludicrous rules and regulations, like "open court"and "no child left behind", have crippled the abilities of school teachers to implement even the most rudimentally effective curriculae.
Minds are like parachutes--they only work when they are open. Programs such as this one are vital to opening up the minds of children to the creative possibilites that surround them. It is impossibly rare for a child, in today's public school system, to go out on their own and pick up a copy of The Canterbury Tales, or The Divine Comedy, or The Odyssey. However, through unique programs that make the arts accessible to children at all grade levels, you dramatically increase the odds that a child will go out and pick up that book, or play, or poem.
Any good teacher will tell you that you have to find "the key" to opening up the mind of a child. There are many, many types of keys, and arts-enrichment programs are often some of the most potent keys available.
In addition, all of the most effective arts programs that are based on "classic" material will go to great length to credit and source the original text/score/script etc.. Extensive study guides, with follow-up questions and in-classroom tasks, are often required by school districts in order for a visiting artist to even perform at a given school. Again, the goal here is not to find cheap, dumb, low-brow replacements---not at all. The goal is to open the minds of our youth, to broaden their experience, to inspire them to the point of discovery and creation.
In today's world, with MTV, i-pods, movies, x-box, etc..., if you can get one child to go out and read Chaucer, or even get them to discuss it with a teacher or classmate, then you have made a difference. And that is exactly what these types of programs aim to accomplish.

So before you look down your nose from that high pedastal, I encourage you to READ the entire posted article again (or, for the first time), without any pre-conceived judgement, and I think you will find a very noble cause.

Thanks for listening.

*steps off soapbox and heads off to tattoo parlor*

I encourage you to READ my entire posted comment again (or, for the first time) without any pre-conceived judgment. I think you'll find that I never said that this was "dumbing down the work," or that I think this recasting is wrong.

I think you'll find that my point was that W.S did indeed "drew most of the plotlines from existing myths, legends, or actual history, and re-contextualized them into a very modern version (for his day and age)." Furthermore, I claim that this is the very nature of almost all writing.

Therefore, rather than simply re-recasting someone else's work for our time, I think it would be more productive - that is, more effective at opening up the minds of children, which is both your goal and mine - to simply take the original myths, legends, and other stories and create our own works for our own time. Or, if you will, write our own classics that will engage the children of today, rather than screwing with the work of someone else.

Thanks for listening.

I was just at the tatto parlor a couple of weeks ago, so I can't go again yet...

Edit: my apologies in advance for the snarkiness; it's morning, I haven't had my coffee yet, and though I'm perfectly happy to debate any point I actually make it frustrates me to have to address remarks made about something I didn't actually write.

[Edited on Jul 29, 2005 by Sick]

Whoa..ease down tiger. I most certainly did read your entire post--and in fact, I was not disagreeing with you at all. Perhaps because I only referenced topaz's name in my reply, you got the impression that I was somehow attacking you? The reason that I kept your comment in my reply was because I essentially agreed with what you were saying.

I am glad you threw the *edit* in there^^ because I have also not yet had my coffee--and I certainly understand how that can make one a bit snarky.

and though I'm perfectly happy to debate any point I actually make it frustrates me to have to address remarks made about something I didn't actually write. I couldn't agree more with that--and again, my remarks were not directed towards your comment, but rather, in support of it.

I thought things were a bit odd there. Glad we got that settled. No hugging, though!

[Edited on Jul 29, 2005 by Sick]

The other thing about that is that for kids that age, the originals would be almost impossible to comprehend. It's Middle English, it's a tough go. This gives kids a point of reference when reading the originals, so they can admire the language rather than simply struggle to understand it. They'll already have an idea of what's going on.

Mostly, my only opposition to this is that adults translating things into rap is really painful to listen to and people ignore it.

Yo man, it's called Harry Potter.
But in all seriousness, I agree. I don't see why schools can't use more recent literature that kids will have an easier time relating to, i.e. Baum's Oz books, the Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings.

I was a big reader starting from early grade school. I mostly knew how to read by the time I started grad school thanks to my sister teaching me. But I wasn't really into capital-L Literature, even when I got to high school. I was reading things like Michael Crighton, Stephen King, Star Wars novels, etc. etc. And school didn't really guide me in a good direction until I took American Literature my senior year. We read A Brave New World and Farenheit 451 (is it a bad sign that Michael Moore has created a sitution where I have to stop and think what numbers come after "Farenheit" when talking about that book?) among others. And from there, I got into Asimov, Orwell, Vonnegut, and branched off into things like Kerouac and Thompson, and now my library is incredibly varied (right now I'm working on The War of the Worlds, Slapstick, The Stand, and Middlesex).

Maybe we ought to be saving Chaucer and Shakespeare for later, when they will have a bit more of a capacity to appreciate them, and in the mean time, find something as valid to teach that will engage them. I mean, hell, sometimes I have trouble reading The Orestia or Richard III myself, and that stuff's my bread and butter.

I think one of the problems is a reactionary faction of society that does not tolerate sex and violence and vulgar language in contemporary literature being taught to kids. I don't see anyone wanting to ban Romeo & Juliet or Hamlet in schools, but just try and teach Catch-22 or A Clockwork Orange or the creme de la censored, Huckleberry Finn. I think I was lucky to have had the chance to read what I did in American Lit. Open minded school district, I guess. (And the teacher was a bit of a hippy, now that I remember.)

All right, I've petered out. I have no snappy closing. Here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.

Next you need to put classic works of poetry to hip-hop beats...

April is the cruelest month, breeding lilacs...

Yeah, but how many people actually speak "modern english" by your definition? Most highschoolers wouldn't even know what "wherefore" actually means, much less "the siege of this mooncalf". Say "monster shit" and you have their attention though.

Preschoolers don't start with calculus you know. 2+2=4 is dumbed down math but I'm glad they have it.

Here's my opinion on the matter, expressed semi-mathematically since we're on the topic.

nothing < Chaucer rap alone
Chaucer rap alone < original Chaucer alone
original Chaucer alone < Chaucer rap + original Chaucer

I hope no schools completely replace the classics with modernized versions, but I doubt that's what we're dealing with here.

I agree; I believe the thread above mine makes the point that we don't start kindergarteners on math starting with calculus. We start with the principles of arithmetic, counting, and simple things and go on from there. (Of course, we won't get started here on my feelings on current math curricula. :mad

I think something a little more modern and written for our age directly would do this better than some stuffy old Chaucer; not, of course, that Chaucer is actually the least bit dull, but I'm sure that's the perception of children.

Yeah, I had a hippy English teacher for Huckleberry Finn too. We had a whole lecture about the use of words in context:

"Now, it wouldn't be appropriate if, at Christmas dinner, I were to say, 'Hey Mom, this turkey sure tastes like shit. Pass the damned ham.' However, in some cirucmstances these words would be acceptable..."

Funniest class ever. Don't even get me started on who's actually banning Huck Finn, and for what reasons. I think Catch-22 should be taught; A Clockwork Orange might need some translation, I'm not sure if kids today could figure out Nadsat for themselves. Maybe I don't give them enough credit.

That picture is hilarious!

On a side note, I think as long as we're translating things into Modern English and rap and such, I'd like to see someone do Finnegans Wake and Ulysses. That might be fun.

If kids can understand that skip-hop nonsense that Snoopy Dog Dog says, I don't think they'll have much trouble with "shive the bratny with my britva."

Fo' shizzle.

I hadn't considered that; I think you're right.

"'What's it going to be then, eh?'
There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really dim, and we sat in the Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening, a flip dark chill winter bastard though dry."

But then, by that argument, they should be able to pick up Middle English. There's enough that's similar. Or I'm once again being overly optimistic.

Maybe they should try Trainspotting. If they can understand that dialogue, they should be able to get anything.

Look what I found:



He's got the full text of The Pardoner's Tale and a few others, plus audio excerpts. The bad part is that he sounds like an idiot. He must be focusing on the younger kids, because I can't imagine that even middle schoolers could listen to him without getting annoyed and heckling. Maybe that's a good thing though, because it's not like the young kids are being taught the original version anyway.

Chaucer was an AMAZING author. I own aprox. five copies of The Canterbury Tales, all anotated differently, and one in Ye Olde English.

It's a shame he died before it was finished.

ON TOPIC: This is a fantastic idea. I support it.

So, you've read Beowulf in original Old English then, I take it? I have a copy, mind you, but haven't been able to get through it as I don't actually read Old English. I'll stick with my Seamus Heaney translation for my pleasure reading.

You do bring up a good point, however, which I think I should address. I would argue the obvious; that there is a differance between a good translation and a bad one. To use an extreme example; I own a prose translation of the Nibelungenleid which gave me a headach it was so horrid. As the Nibel is a poem, it lost much in a translation into prose English. On the other hand, I once came upon a copy which kept the original rhyming and rythem structure intact and was, naturally, written in a poetic style. This one I loved and really got into. It is possible for a translation to keep to the spirit and heart of the original work, but still make it accessable to a larger audiance.
I am an educator and I believe that anything which increases people's interest in a classic is a good thing. The correct usage of the "Rappin' Chauser (TM)" would be as an introduction; play the material so students can get a grasp of it and then show them it in its correct form. This can also be used for Shakespear; there are any number of 'modern day translations' of his works out there which can be useful for this purpose.
One final question; you say you haven't reach Chauser, but you are aware that it is written in Middle English which is rather different from Modern English, correct? Most school text books already use a translation of the text; it was how I read it in High School. Why not use a translation which students can feel some affinity for and which maintains a poetic form?

P.S. Here is the introduction to "The Canterbury Tales" in Middle English of the London dialect(there were many different dialects after all).

Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the ram his half cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye
(so priketh hem nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond to Caunterbury they wende,
The holy blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.
Bifil that in that sesoun on a day,
In Southwerk at the Tabard as I lay
Redy to wenden on my pilgrymage
To Caunterbury, with ful devout corage,
At nyght was come into that hostelrye
Wel nyne and twenty in a compaignye,
Of sondry folk, by aventure yfalle
In felaweshipe, and pilgrimes were they alle,
That toward Caunterbury wolden ryde.
The chambres and the stables weren wyde,
And wel we weren esed atte beste.
And shortly, whan the sonne was to reste,
So hadde I spoken with hem everichon
That I was of hir felaweshipe anon,
And made forward erly for to ryse,
To take oure wey ther as I yow devyse.
But, nathelees, whil I have tyme and space,
Er that I ferther in this tale pace,
Me thynketh it acordaunt to resoun
To telle yow al the condicioun
Of ech of hem, so as it semed me,
And whiche they were, and of what degree,
And eek in what array that they were inne;
And at a knyght than wol I first bigynne.

There always has to be respect for the material and for the students. This approach will fail if it's implemented with the attitude that Chaucer is boring but good for you, that students are incapable of dealing with challenging material, and that rap is of no value except for sugarcoating the boring material. If the teacher isn't capaple of finding the rap as open to linguistic and metrical analysis as the Chaucer, then the students will rightly feel that they are being patronised, and they'll respond with contempt.