A Different Kind of Vogueing

[Guest]

OH NO! 'dita has a Fairy Godfather

And what's wrong with that? He's has a virile mellifluous voice and talks my knickers off (though it doesn't do me any good).

Perdita, 'dita, Pear, Purr, not sure who I am at times

 

[raphy]

Oh, god, you can play on Wilde.
'dita

*grins*

Is that a realization or the giving of permission?

 

[Guest]

Is that a realization or the giving of permission?

It was a pleasant realization first, but permission is granted too (I'm very protective of Oscar; don't ever mention Bosie to me).

'dita

 

[raphy]

It was a pleasant realization first, but permission is granted too (I'm very protective of Oscar; don't ever mention Bosie to me).

'dita

Wow, first name terms, and everything....

*grins*

I wouldn't dare, dear.

 

[ffreak]

from before:

Sure - the initial blast into the marketplace may hypnotize the slavering masses, who just want to see the lions get their share of fresh meat. But after awhile, those masses are no longer able to earn sufficient income to bring to the dark alley where they place their inflated offerings for the drek that is slopped out in return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm, Eff, could you translate that into fifth and a half grade level English?

know how long it takes to reduce good language to drivel? Three valium later, here's the results:

Don't miss out on the chance of a lifetime!

BLOOD! GORE! EXPLOSIONS! SEX! FREE! with minimal purchase of $24.99

This is a limited time offer, Hurry before the price goes up!

Offer may not be valid in local areas. This offer is exclusive of actual meaning, common sense, and decency. Discounts only apply to other people. Sign-up includes agreement to pay us over and over and over and over.

-FF (sticker shocked)

 

[oggbashan]

T'was ever thus

Tyndale's Bible was lambasted for polluting the original Latin (which wasn't original because the Bible was Hebrew or Greek).

Much of his version became the King James Bible "The Authorised Version" which is the only example of an artistic work produced by a committee. Perhaps they were divinely inspired?

The AV is wonderful English and was written to be read aloud.

In my shop I have Children's Bibles in simple English, or in strip cartoons, or tales from the Bible for five year olds. The Victorian children's versions are the worst. Their language is just as difficult as the AV and is definitely NOT inspired but turgid.

Simple versions of the Biblical Tales used to be painted on the inside walls of Churches, and shown in stained glass. All are "popularisations".

If this new "whatever it is" gets teenagers to read a Bible it serves its purpose. While they are at it they could read The Koran and other religions' sacred texts as well. There are similarities in the moral position of most. Comparitive religion should teach understanding and tolerance which will we all need.

Og

 

[janus40s]

One can’t help wondering whether it is the spreading of their “Bible” as a gospel, or the spreading of their “Bible” as a commodity, that has shaped its content, as well as its form.

The motives of the publishers are certainly suspect.

Aside form that, an English-speaking person who states – apparently with pride – that she can’t understand Shakespearian syntax, gives me whim-whams. With ten to fifteen minutes of concentration, even an imbecile can grow an “ear” for Shakespeare.

Speaking as a true fan of the bard, I have to disagree.

The archaic language of both Shakespeare and the KVJ requires more than a little study to discern the meaning.

Remember that the target audience is teenagers. Can we seriously expect the average sixteen-year-old to plow through The Acts of the Apostles in the KJV or the written text of Hamlet without some serious assistance from a teacher?

I have seen more than half of Shakespeare's plays performed by true experts, in the format originally intended. That includes The Tempest, Hamlet and The Two Gentlemen of Verona in the last 90 days. I love the plays but I would not expect a high-school sophomore to read them unassisted.

The reality is that most stage actors are unable to deliver his lines fluidly.

I know, ten minutes is beyond their attention span.

...And ours. When was the last time any of us saw *the entire* text of Hamlet staged?

Could anyone reading this forum actually pass a test on the books of Revelations and Leviticus?

In an age where college degrees are prerequisite to becoming hamburger assemblers, the fact that people no longer read with a Grade 12 comprehension, but rather have regressed to a Grade 5.5 level...

The audience is teenaged girls. By definition, many of them will be currently attending grades 7 through 11. Regardless of the quality of education, it is not fair to expect an eighth grader to read at a Grade 12 comprehension level.

Aside from that, the New York Times isn't written at a Grade 12 reading level. Has it been otherwise in the lifetime of anyone reading this forum?

does not suggest to me, the need for a new, “Illiterates Bible,” even if it were a competent translation. What it tells me, is that the country requires massive education reform, and fully funded, and attended, adult literacy programs.

While I agree with the need for massive education reforms and increases in spending, I must also point out that the KJV is not a competent translation. It was never intended to be. It was intentionally translated in a literary style that would enhance the beauty of the prose and poetry, as perceived by 17th century royalty.

As an example, in the sixteen hundreds, the familiar second person (e.g. thou and thee) had already fallen from common use among the masses and even the nobility for all but ceremonial occasions.

Sheesh!

Jesus spoke to the masses in a very simple style (parables) because he knew that his audience did not have the educational advantages of the Pharisees. Christians need to learn from his example.

It is the responsibility of Christians to take the message of the gospel to those who have not heard it and tell it in a form that is understandable to them.

While the magazine in question (assuming that the article itself is sincere) is probably not a responsible method of spreading the gospel, neither is the King James Version of the bible.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Remember that the target audience is teenagers. Can we seriously expect the average sixteen-year-old to plow through The Acts of the Apostles in the KJV or the written text of Hamlet without some serious assistance from a teacher?

I don't know about the average sixteen-year-old, but I read Julius Caesar when I was fifteen without any assistance from a teacher, and I only starter to study English when I was 10-11 years old. So yes, I think we can seriously expect the average sixteen-year-old whose native language is English to do it, or something is decisively wrong with the educational system...

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Re: T'was ever thus

Og, I agree entirely with your post.

I think the appalling thing in all this wasn't the religious aspect, it was the lightness of that interview, the notion this publishing house has of today's teenagers, and asinine comments like the one perdita emphasised in bold.

 

[raphy]

I'm. with LH.

Not a huge fan of the Bard, meself, but I first studied him at age 13. I'd read Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion by the time I was 10. Lord of the Rings took me 3 days, cover to cover, all 3 books. My friends and I used to write messages back and forth to each other in Sperethiel during Geography class.

There is no excuse (other than medically certifiable learning disorders) for being illterate.

 

[gauchecritic]

Originally posted by janus40s
I have seen more than half of Shakespeare's plays performed by true experts, in the format originally intended. That includes The Tempest, Hamlet and The Two Gentlemen of Verona in the last 90 days. I love the plays but I would not expect a high-school sophomore to read them unassisted.

The reality is that most stage actors are unable to deliver his lines fluidly. When was the last time any of us saw *the entire* text of Hamlet staged?

As an example, in the sixteen hundreds, the familiar second person (e.g. thou and thee) had already fallen from common use among the masses and even the nobility for all but ceremonial occasions.

I was going to go on and on here but then I realised that all your observations are from an American standpoint.

I'll take them by paragraph.

Highschool sophomores (16-18?) personally I beg to differ. From recent experience very little assistance was required when my sons read Shakey, apart from grammatical form.

Stage actors: american? (I'm seriously not trying to put anyone down here) All the Shakfberd I've heard here (not recently I'll admit) was perfectly recognisable and understandable. Although I will allow that reading of text first is advisable. (Won't mention Yorkshire versions)

As an example the familiar second person (thee and thou) are still extant and widely used almost anywhere North of the Black Country.

Gauche

 

[Angeline]

What is shocking to me about the publication is not that it purportedly attempts to translate "difficult" reading material to make it accessible to a wider audience. Thomas Bowdler did it (to equally mixed reviews) in his early 19th-c. Family Shakespeare. Why should the bible be um sacred? Hell, Cliff Notes does it all the time. How many kids do you think use Cliff Notes as a supplement (as opposed to reading the notes and not the book)?There's a big precedent for this sort of thing. After all, maybe the bible--whichever testament--isn't even (gasp) the real word of god.

So horrible as another direct hit to literary literacy and critical thinking is, the really nauseating thing to me is the slick Madison Avenue-like spin on shoving dogma down some innocent impressionable throats. I'm surprised that god, to whom the author apparently has a direct line, hasn't pointed out that this sort of shrewd deception is decidedly ungodly.

 

[ffreak]

Well said Angeline.

from Lauren
Aside from that, the New York Times isn't written at a Grade 12 reading level.

No, it isn't. Nor did Hemingway write at a 12th grade reading level. Both intentionally are at a 6th grade reading level for the supposed masses that may not be educated at any higher grade.

Not a 5 1/2 grade level. That, I think, is what gets my goat. Not that the publisher is citing any precedent-setting standard that should be followed in this age, but that they want to dumb-down the existing standards.

I'm all for the study of good works by any name. It's a little hard to believe that commercialization will have any interest in promoting anything other than the products they can collect money from.

(BTW: a study at Princeton using the Fogg Index showed that over the last ten years - probably the 90's, the NY Times had allowed their level to wander from 7th to 10th grade levels because of the increased use of technology terms in their articles.)

ps. I belong to a church with an unpaid lay ministry - so my comments may sound a little naive to folks who are used to passing the plate at every meeting.

-FF (feeling more like bfffrrrrpt)

 

[Angeline]

ffreak, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I consider that most American states' graduation (i.e., 12th grade) reading standards are predicated on a 10th-grade reading level. I'm so happy that the Bush administration is trying to ensure that no child be "left behind," but it would be nice if we did so at the minimum competency the grade they graduate from suggests. Otherwise why not just have them graduate after 10th grade--but then maybe standards would be rolled back to 8th. lol.

And I love Shakespeare and have studied and written about it since high school. I think anyone can learn to appreciate the works--plays and sonnets--for both the poetic beauty of the language and their thematic relevance to our own lives. It's not so difficult; just a matter of understanding the contexts (Elizabethan England and early modern English) in which he wrote. Sadly though, many students today need more urgently to learn how to write a complete sentence or calculate a percentage.

 

[Guest]

Hi, janus40s, just a few comments to your post: I know from personal and collegial experience over decades that it does not take much more than an edition of a play with footnotes (not necessarily as academic as the Arden or Variorum) for an English speaker (whether as first or second or third language) to ‘get’ Shakespeare’s texts. One may wade through various passages blindly but every play is substantially available even to near illiterate persons. Of course the more one rereads the plays the better, but that’s up to an individual’s interest.

I would guess the average American teenager is not going to read Shakespeare on her own but a teacher need only be a guide and make some of the footnotes more presentable. I’ve said this a few times and repeat what my former English professor and mentor told us at the beginning of her Sh’re course, “All you need to understand Shakespeare is to be a human being.” Besides the help from my teachers in high school, that is why I took to the texts at 15.

Even ‘bad’ productions of the plays offer something not gleaned by mere reading. I’ve seen dismal to brilliant performances and never been bored or dismayed. Unlike Gauche I will put down American actors of Shakespeare. I have yet to see or hear one who comes close to the English/UK actors. Also IMO “Method” actors are the worst in performing Sh’re.

I am always disappointed at the cuts in the performed plays but I know there’s nothing to be done and presume the producers hold the bottom line in budgeting. It amazes me this is so as no one has ever dared cut one note of a Wagner opera, the best of which run as long or longer than Hamlet. Though he’s not a first rate film-maker, I was very pleased that Kenneth Branaugh filmed the entire play.

Regards, Perdita

 

[gauchecritic]

If I can just clear one small point up which has been discomfitting me. Shakespearean language isn't a high brow one, merely old.

The plays were written for and attended by the illiterati of the time as well as those few literate persons of prestige and wealth.

As I understand it all or at least most of Shakespeare's plays were stolen or based upon traditional and/or ancient tales which were common word of mouth tales anyway. He just popularised and made them personal (to him)

The language, as I understand it, was the language of the time, much as today's soaps, sitcoms and films use the language of today. Until recently no one actually spoke like they do in written work of any kind.

Is the medium closing in on RL (and losing its value) or is RL trying hard to do the opposite of 'art'? Reflecting itself.

Just a thought.

Gauche

 

[OldnotDead]

Economics, not religion

The success or failure of this effort will probably end up being totally determined by sales volume. If they do find that 'niche within a niche' audience, and sell enough, they will do another printing.

Our three year old, taught himself to read. As a young adult still devours books. In Kindergarten was tested to be reading at an 5th grade level. Definitely not a slouch

But loved the 'cartoon strip Bible' that was a gift for First Communion. Read and re read until it had that look of lots of other well loved books that is known to avid readers. It rested on a nightstand where at least two or three 'action heroes' also sat.

It was in 10th or 11th grade, the Old Testament teacher observed that his personal knowledge of the Bible was significantly greater than all the other students. We asked him after the conference if he confessed to the teacher where his base of knowledge was derived.

If it had been his sole source, I probably would have a different attitude. That it was a source of interest and intrigue that made him willing to read more is ok with me.

Just another observation,
OldnotDead

 

[Guest]

Just to note that Gauche is mostly right, no special need for me to descant further (go read Sh're on your own, people!). He makes a good oft overlooked point.

Perdita

 

[scarlet vixen]

Someone said about this teen bible, Revolve,

"not(no) need for another that caters to the illiterate, unwashed teens. "

Funny I would have thought the original talks and parables catered to just those people. Or do you really think that the listeners heard, in Aramaic, the likes of Shakespearean style, the stately cadences:

"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; how they toil not; neither do they spin. ... Yet Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."

Gimme a break, guys. Those circumstances weren't the place for you're LIT TRAH TYOOR.

SV

PS added: Right on, Ogg. More elegantly said.

 

[scarlet vixen]

svenska flicka,

"Christians are ridiculous...

Sorry for offending people, but that's my opinion. Religion is ridiculous, and should be replaced by good shrinks."

Hey I'll take my NT and you can have your Prozac and if things get really bad, your good shrink's ECT, now making a welcome comeback for the worshippers at your Temple of Psychiatry.

SV

PS: no I got nothing against your religion if you just keep the damn needle full of Modecate away from my butt.

 

[ffreak]

Good point, Scarlet (or should I call you Vixen - BTW welcome to our humble abode where we pound out the words, but not each other - Gauche notwithstanding - he's tough enough to take it).

Without trying to argue one way or the other about divinity, the audience for Jesus was most certainly not filled from the local university elite - quite the opposite. Therefore his language would have been that of the common man in the area he was speaking - as you said, Aramaic. We know (and it was pointed-out earlier in this thread) that his words, however inspired copying and translations may be, went through not just the second hand of scribes of the time, but through lost translations in-between what we have to study today. So, no, the Shakespearian language of the King James version is not an accurate reflection of the words spoken 2000 years ago.

Somehow I remember that the comic-book versions of bible stories I read in my youth differed from other comics in that they did not have 5-10 pages of advertisements. They only promoted themselves to get you to go after another issue.

Here the objection is in a claimed intent to tie fashion advertising which I, for one, feel may become the content rather than teaching good principles that better a person's life.

-FF (I don't walk fences, I fall off - on both sides)

ps. We are having a lot of fun discussing something when we don't have a copy to examine it to verify our vilifications.

pps. Any version of encouragement and high values is worthy of existing - even if the kids get-it by osmosis. You do agree, don't you, that the ads about Joe Camel don't encourage teenage smoking. They're targeted for a much younger crowd.

 

[Guest]

probably not my last words on Sh're

People are referring to Shakespeare's language as if it were a tongue of its own, or covered all English speakers of his time, or even all of England's. More often it is called Elizabethan English (vs. early or middle). Just a few points.

It was the language, not the plots and roles that drew Sh're's audiences and that have kept his texts 'alive'. There was no scenery, bare props, no lighting (the plays were performed during the day), no curtain, etc.

While English was in flux Sh're took eveyr advantage, even mocking its usage in many of his plays. He mocked his own use (compare the treacle Hamlet sends Ophelia w/any of the sonnets.) Not for our sake but still we should be grateful he wrote at just the right time for his art (as English was becoming 'fire-new' after the time of Middle English) and 'the time to come'.

anon, Perdita

 

[Pure]

There's nothing posted after Perd's initial basic facts about Revolve; so I searched out a couple reviews, the second with excerpts. Though it was stated in Perd's small excerpt, it's not been sufficiently emphasized that the translation is not new, it's New Century Version, which has been around a couple years. Extremely simple, grade five-ish; clear, if uninspired.

The innovations are the packaging, Seventeen-like cover, sidebars, quizes, etc. as the second reviewer illustrates. Those, perhaps contain a message a bit too chaste for some, see below.

===
http://www.freep.com/news/religion/crumm30_20030730.htm
Detroit Free Press

DAVID CRUMM: Magazine version of the Bible draws young female readers

July 30, 2003BY DAVID CRUMM

FREE PRESS COLUMNISTWhile cleaning off my desk recently, I threw away a brand new Bible, because I mistook it for a fashion magazine that I figured someone had left lying around the office.

The irony is that this is exactly what the creators of this strange new edition of the scriptures hoped would happen. Well, not that a middle-aged guy would throw it away -- but definitely that their wild new edition of the Bible would be mistaken for a glitzy magazine for young women.

[etc.; a somewhat positive review]

===

Posted on Thu, Aug. 28, 2003

The Philadelphia Inquirer

A new spin on the Bible
By Jim Remsen
INQUIRER FAITH LIFE EDITOR

Revolve is the first Bible ever made in a magazine format. More than 30,000 copies have been shipped since its mid-July release.

Hey, girls, want a cool beauty secret? How about some dating advice?The skinny comes from a Good Book that's been repackaged in pink as a peppy girls' magazine. In teen-zine guise, Revolve: The Complete New Testament [...]is the first Bible ever made in a magazine format, said Laurie Whaley, the project's senior editor.

Its tips are wholesome but perky. On skin care: "As you apply sunscreen, use that time to talk to God. Tell him how grateful you are for how he made you. Soon, you'll be so used to talking to him, it might become as regular and familiar as shrinking your pores."

On dating: If you're going after that cute guy 'cause you think he'll make you popular, that's selfish, and love is not selfish. "Check your priorities, sister. They're way off."Says who? Says the Bible.

[...]Still, considering the success of Christian rock and the blockbuster Left Behind books, this latest Christian crossover into pop culture is hardly outlandish.[...]The gamble seems to be paying off: More than 30,000 copies have been shipped since Revolve's mid-July release, and the Christian Booksellers Association reports it as one of the five top-selling Bibles.

The Scripture verses unfurl, sedate and unadulterated, across Revolve's 390 pages, but the cover trumpets the added features. Like billboards along The Way, there are "Bible Bios" of women in Scripture and quizzes for lovelorn readers ("Are you dating a godly guy?"). There are tips on finding "inner beauty" and activity calendars (Sept. 17: "Sit with someone you don't know very well today at lunch"; Sept. 18: "Cook dinner tonight and give your parents a rest - tell them how grateful you are for all they do.").

And, knowing its audience, Revolve dishes up lots of talk about and from boys. Revolve's fresh-faced models, and its advice that guys prefer girls who are "sensible" and "natural," may be a tonic to youngsters accustomed to high glamour and low self-esteem.

There are limits to its girl power, however. Beneath the packaging, Revolve bears conservative Christian messages that would make old St. Paul smile. Among its declarations: "Revolve girls don't call guys," and "Revolve girls are not argumentative." One entry in an advice column called Blab says, "God made guys to be the leaders. That means they lead in relationships. They tell you they like you" first, not vice versa.

Elsewhere, it says homosexuality "is clearly sinful," premarital sexual abstinence "is commanded by God and is a liberating lifestyle choice," and "dating a nonbeliever is like playing with fire."Though reader feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, Whaley said, "we've had a lot of questions" about the don't-call-boys advice. "I don't know if you'll see it in the second edition."

Christian publishers already offer specialized Bibles for many demographic niches, [...] the venerable Thomas Nelson Inc., produced a hardcover Extreme Teen Bible in 1999 that had pop-culture packaging and side lessons much like Revolve's. Extreme sold more than one million copies.

But Whaley said follow-up market surveys showed that parents must have done most of the buying."We asked how often teens actually read the Bible, and the results were, 'We don't.' As a whole, even Christian kids were telling us, 'The Bible is freaky and we don't read it.' "When they were asked what they did read, Whaley said, the response was resounding: "Magazines, magazines, magazines, magazines. Seventeen, Teen People, Cosmo, Self. "[...]

The new magazine-friendly findings, she said, caused the plan to "morph" into the magazine project.[...]To help make it reader-friendly, it incorporates as its Bible text Thomas Nelson's copyrighted New Century Version, which Whaley said was written at a fifth-grade level.

Amy McPeak, 17, a high school senior in the suburbs of Nashville, was among the teens recruited to weigh in on the magazine manuscript. She gave it a thumbs-up as "easier to read and really relevant to things I go through."Also, she said, "One time I went to [the] pool with it, and my friends said it was so cool. We went through the quizzes together."


[end excerpt]

 

[Guest]

 

[ffreak]

I don't know - I keep revolving around this whole discussion.

-FF (couldn't resist)