P&P in simple English

Oh my god!!!NO!! I think something like this is a definite travesty to Jane Austen and to literature. Literature is beautiful, more beautiful when most difficult!! Ayelet please take that book and discard it and pray no one else finds it.

I agree. What makes the book beautiful is the language. Plain English will prevent thinking - all those lovely images will be erased to simply read quickly.

Why would anyone want to read something for just a plot? It would be like reading a comic book. Plots are for telling, books for reading. Literature has simile, metaphors, rhyme, alliteration, personification, onomatopoeia, foreshadowing, suspense, romance, familial love, etc. Why would you want to miss out on reading something that takes your breath away? Would you want to miss those books that you just have to read slow because every other sentence is worth reading over again? What if Melville had just said "My name is Ishmael"? What if Grendle was "just" a monster? What if Conrad had just said "it was bad" rather than "the horror!! the horror!!? I think you see my point. Yes, Ayelet, burn it!!

Any popularization of any work is better than none at all, if it can bring a spark of interest to a young mind or a not so young mind, the same as the effect of some movie or tv series might do, well Happy thoughts This may well lead to something more, widening interest and learning something new in the process, there is always place for brodening the mind :) A very good initiative used often in school, like P&P2, no?

My response just disappeared into na, na land, so I'll try to recreate it. ]...for teenages in non-English cuontries like Israel, it's maybe their only chance to meet P&P and JA, and maybe even make them want to read the real version. Ayelet, I think this is a valid point. If one already understands the story, she/he may be better able to appreciate the beauty of the Regency English and JA's exceptional use of it. It could be used as a tool for learning by comparing the two ways of describing an incident. Laura, Lynn, Dina, I understand your abhorrence, but I do feel that such a book can be useful. Please do not burn it, Ayelet!! Linda

I think it's a useful tool Ayelet, especially for young scholars in perhaps a country where English may be just one of many languages. Not a good idea just to discard it. Almost all books should be treasured, I think.

Part of the reason I love P&P is because of the language usage. How can Darcy's comment "fine eyes" be anything but! I just think that it gives the whole story character! We see alot of movies about a guy wanting a girl and she doesn't know she likes him until the end....it just isn't the same as Jane Austens usage of the language and having it set in England....it's like comparing Darcy to Pauly Shore, for crying out loud!

This kind of reminds me of the debate around releasing the Bible with "popular" language. There are even some "urban" & "feminist" versions out there (God is a she, but we all knew that). I don't know. I hate to see fine things dumbed down. What makes P&P so special & immortal is Austen's wit, style, and language. Without these, why bother?

"I hate to see fine things dumbed down." The King James Version might not be any smarter than newer bible translations, it's just the language is generally perceived as more poetic and the older language forms make it sound more sophisticated to our modern ears. Since the King james Version is only a translation, an argument could be made that translating it out of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is also dumbing it down. If a modern translation can bring more people into religion I have no arguments about it. As for Austen, I'm sort of the same way. Someone who reads an abridged version of P&P has at least gotten some basic exposure to it. Some might then have their interest aroused enough that they will pick up the real thing. Same goes for the movie versions--they have certainly brought more people into Austenland, but are certainly dumbed down from the pure novel.

Ayelet, sounds to me like you have got hold of an "easy reader" version. They are not wonderful, but they do help. I have to admit that when I was about your age, my grandfather gave me a book, very big and very ugly, called "Famous books in Outline" which summarised every story you could think of, form "Gilgamesh" and Plato's "Republic" on through Caesar's "Gallic Wars", Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress", "Jane Eyre" and "Wuthering Heights" to "Tom Sawyer", "Mein Kamf"and "Das Kapital". Over a hundred bo ks in all. Most of the writing in it was awful, but it got me interested enough to read the real thing, and kept the idea alive for those books that were beyond my understanding in the original.It was one of the best presents I was ever given!

which summarised every story you could think of, form "Gilgamesh" and Plato's "Republic" on through Caesar's "Gallic Wars", Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress", "Jane Eyre" and "Wuthering Heights" to "Tom Sawyer", "Mein Kamf"and "Das Kapital". There are "Wuthering Heights" and "The Wind In The Willows" in this format as well. I wonder if they thought about doing it to "War And Peace"? ;-)

Ayelet, you are so funny. Again, I must ask. Can you really be 11 years old?

The first version I read of Little Women was a children's version. I loved it (I was 10), later read an 'unabridged' version (in my early teens), and soon after read every Alcott book I could get my hands on. It is not necessarily a bad thing. I do worry that students of works assigned in class will often by-pass reading great novels by reading Classic Comics, Cliff's Notes, and children's versions. What a waste! (Although in the case of anything written by Hawthorne I think it is reas nable!;-) )

Amy, if you insist upon it, I'm 12 on may.

I hate to censor anyone's ability to do anything that isn't actually harmful to others, and if it gets people interested in reading great books they wouldn't otherwise ever pick up, then maybe it's a good thing. BUT, I'm wondering if this kind of thing has ever been done with Shakespeare, for instance? Isn't he considered sacrosanct, even though the language he used is so different from ours now? It is precisely because he was so good that we're still performing his plays hundreds of years later, and t e same applies to JA. I also think, as someone mentioned above, that a lot is lost and misinterpreted in the act of translation, and I wouldn't want to miss one minute of any of JA's books.

Re: #12 Amy, as we would say "down home", Ayelet is 11 going on 40!! Delightful! Re:#15 Susan, yes it has been done with Shakespeare. As a matter of fact, I have a copy of Tales from Shakespeare by Charles and Mary Lamb (I may be wrong about the authors' names). I first saw it in the library at my High School. I bought a copy for my nephew when he was in Junior High School. He said that he found it helpful. Unfortunately, it has yet to induce him to read the real Shakespeare. He is in 11th grade and more interested in sports. I still have hopes for the future, though. Ayelet, your name reads beautifully, how is it pronounced?? Linda

Re Shakespeare: Shakespeare does of course get translated into many other languages in MODERN language, which must mean it's easier for the average German or Japanese to understand than it is for us. I think abbreviated versions do have some merit, if only as a way of explaining what you are going to read when you read the real thing. No one could read a Shakespeare play these days without a glossary - there are words that simply don't make sense to us any more. I have no doubt that the day will come when it is impossible to read Austen without a dictionary or glossary. Whatever helps, I say. I do admit, however, that beautiful language is part of the attraction of Austen and Shakespeare. But if you don't know what it means, it's useless. Work out what the story is however you can. And then LUXURIATE in the language.

Another intersting translation prejudice occurs in opera. In America, and I believe also in Britain, operas are listened to in their original language and are therefore unintellegeble to most English-speaking listeners. This is not true elsewhere in the world, where they are translated into the local tongue. I think this is due to a bit of an historical snob-factor in opera circles (which I believe is dying out). Old-time opera-snobs seemed to want to distinguish themselves from the rest, and did not want to see opera democratised. With shrinking budgets and the need to fill more seats in the theaters, this is all changing. Opera companies can no longer only cater to the few and must broaden their appeal. It is an interesting transition to watch. (Though I do it from the outside, I'm not an opera fan myself.)

Interesting thought, Ann. Maybe that's why I've never been an opera fan, but I love all Gilbert & Sullivan operettas - partly because they're in English, but mostly because their funny!;-)

Inko: but I love all Gilbert & Sullivan operettas - partly because they're in English, but mostly because their funny!;-) Yes, I'm a huge G&S fan as well. Even sang Cousin Hebe in HMS Pinafore in college..."And so are his sisters and his cousins and his aunts!" (my big line!)

Linda: A-ye-let, many people think it's Eyelet, but it isn't.

I saw a version of P&P in the children's section of the county library, I flipped through it but don't remember the particulars. It was short, but they tried to (I think) keep some of the sentence structure and syntax. I thought it could be a introduction for 8 -11 yr olds. (Excepting exceptional kids like Ayelet.) Am enjoying Annes story, and the piece on Mary.

]BUT, I'm wondering if this kind of thing has ever been done with Shakespeare, for instance? Would'nt West Side Story or Wishbone apply if we include other medias other than just books? ]I do admit, however, that beautiful language is part of the attraction of Austen and Shakespeare. But if you don't know what it means, it's useless. Quite true, especially when your tackling a second/third language. Subtlety of the language itself is sometimes lost, imagine one written a few centuries earlier. Once you get the basic plot line, you can work around enjoying the various colors of the language.

There's a program on Canadian Bravo called Operabox which is 30 minutes long that uses puppets to depict operas like the Barber of Seville, Carmen, or Rigoletto. It's quite funny to hear these marionettes sing in English but it helps us to get the jist of the tales. I personaly prefer hearing an opera in its original language (either French or Italian) because I understand those languages but I must admit that the use of English subtitles makes it more enjoyable for me when it becomes too difficult to com rehend their singing.

Ann: I'm hardly a Biblical scholar, so I can't argue if the King James Version is "dumber" than the original. However, the modern versions I mentioned are conscious simplifications whose goal is basically to appeal to post-literate readers. In my own experience, I've always enjoyed the original version of a work the best (& that includes thoughtful, unabridged translations). For example, Malory's MORTE D'ARTHUR has been translated a million ways, from pseudo-Shakespearean language to really simple kidd e versions. But if you go back to the original in Middle English, you find a beauty & simplicity of language that's really staggering. And not a trace of a "thee" or "thou"!

Did I mention that my Malory obsession is even greater than my P&P one? Any other K. Arthur fans out there?

Me! Though I must admit I've been neglecting it in favor of other, ummmm, pursuits lately. ;)

I've never thought of Arthur in quite the same way since I read "The Mists of Avalon"...

Kate: Hope MZB didn't ruin it for you! Whenever I think of an author whose work has lost so much in translation, I think of Malory. Does anyone know why translators had the compulsion to make him sound like Shakespeare? I mean, they didn't do this to Chaucer!!

Amy2 - I noticed that, too! It seemed to me that the beauty of the story was the simplicity, like old Anglo-Saxon tales or Greek myths. The language mucked it up, and reduced the enjoyment considerably. I really had to make up my mind to ignore the language and pay attention to the story.

Ayelet, you brought up quite an interesting subject! English not being mother tongue and Korean being so different from English, I am sure I would have not enjoyed reading Classics such as Austen's when I first got here. (Reading A. Christie's mystery novels is a different story, however.) It would help for people like me to read those books in simpler English at first and then in their original form if one wants to. For people who decide not to read an original version, it is their lost. However, I ave a different opinion about Opera. I love Operas not for their story (I must confess), but for their music and for love of human voices as one kind of musical intruments. I have been operas sung both in original language and in simple English version and I prefer (I need stronger word than this) operas with original language!!! Subtitle helps though. Jenny

I've never thought of Arthur in quite the same way since I read "The Mists of Avalon"... Me too!!!! I have read Malory and a few others. Had my Authurian obsession the summer after high school. A co-worker gave me TMOA to read. Hmmmm.

English is certainly not as pretty a language as Italian or French. I can easily see that the sound of an opera in English would not be as pleasing as one in Italian.

There is a great conversation about opera languages in Amadeus. Makes me want to go rent it right now. Think I will. Fave scene though: when Sagliari (sp?) really sees Mozart's genius by doing his scribbling and bibbling for him.

I must say I did actually _enjoy_ Avalon. I found it really interesting to see the whole story from a female point of view. And I found all the stuff about the pre-Christian religions fascinating.... if farfetched. My mother read it after me and got so into the Arthurian stuff that when they went to England the following year she had to visit Tintagel, etc,etc I read "The Once and Future King" when I was in high school and really loved it. But I hardly remember it now.

This is another one that I need to clarify myself. I did not mean English is not as pretty as Italian or French. Although I do not know all the languages out there, I am pretty sure all are beautiful. When I had a hard time appreciating other languages, it is mostly because I am not familiar with its usual sounds. Lyrics are (to me) like poem or even Austen's novels. When it gets translated, somehow it does not quite retain all its beauty. What do you think, Amy? If I remember correctly, Mozart wanted to write an opera in German (in Amadeus) not in Italian which was the language to use that time. I do like Mozart opera, too. I am not familiar with Gilberts and Sulllivans. I know it is not the same. HOwever I also love many musicals written in English. As a side note, I watched MANY American movies dubbed in Korean when I was younger. I have seen only a few movies both in original English and in Korean dubbing, but I say translation does not quite do the just ce. Perhaps it is a fault of a translator. Jenny

Jenny -- I agree about dubbing (non English films into English). The words do not match the lips, and they have to translate to fit the correct amount of time. It must be very difficult. I prefer subtitles, although then it is harder to watch the people.

Oh yes Amy, you mean when he is taking the Requiem music down on papers and Mozart is dying?? He can't believe such music to just emerge from the mans head...but he can appreciate it...so excited, crying 'yes yes and then...' What say you of the scene where Constanze brings Mozarts sheets of music to Salieri, to beg him to help them. And he suddenly understand that they are originals, almost no changes...and 'Music of such exquisite beauty' simply written down as it is created, I get that spring tingle even when I think of it.. Jenny, I believe "The Magic Flute=Die Zauberfl�te"" was originally done in German...Der Vogelf�nger bin ich ja...done for the amusement of ordinary people.

] And he suddenly understand that they are originals, almost no changes...and 'Music of such exquisite beauty' simply written down as it is created, I get that spring tingle even when I think of it.. __ Yes, first and only drafts. This is confirmed in his letters. I think he must have been channeling -- or something. Such a fine movie.

I understand that Marion Zimmer Bradley in fact practices wicca, so maybe that's where her knowledge of "pagan" religions comes in. As far as poor Malory -- there's this incredible version of the MORTE which is published by the University of California - it's a 2-volume set, and it's a very faithful transcription of his own manuscript. The language is so much better than all that faux-Shakespearian stuff! The non-standard spelling is a little hard to take, but after a while, it kind of grows on you. T is is my favorite translation of the MORTE.

My opinion on this subject probably will not be too popular, but I think that all classics should be brought down to simple English for easy access esp. for those of us whose first language is not English, but cannot read well enough in our first language to reach the level of classics. Although, P&P was the exception to the rule, I have a tendency to find the classics through comic books, Barron's Notes, Coles Notes, or TV/Movie Adaptations first. That's how I read The Scarlet Letter, Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, and numerous Shakespearean plays. After I've figured out the main plot, I can then go back to enjoy the intricate details of the story. For me this is especially good for classics because I always want to know what the plot is, first. Once I am satisfied that the hero or heroine end up in a reasonable situation, I can go back to the story and read it thoroughly. This weakness is also the reason why I can't get through a Dickens or any long on description novels. I tend to skip long escriptions and somewhere along the way I end up missing some important parts of the plot. Once that happens, I'm usually lost and can't finish it. So in short, I'm all for P&P in simple english.

Angela, I understand your point, but literature is so much more than plot! When you read a truncated version of any work, classic or no, you're missing out on the author's language, style, insights; in short, everything that makes it literary. I think it's worth the struggle to try to read a work as close to the original as you can. Otherwise, you're not really reading the work.

I've been following this topic for awhile. When I first read P&P, it was a summerized version introduced into school as an introduction to Literature ( I was then 12 yrs old and in school in Singapore). The essence of the JA's story was there with less details to confuse a young-classic reader. But Mr Darcy still proposed in his "In vain have I struggled.." Parts of the book was simply explained to us,the bits that didn't make sense in the normal usage of English. 3 years later , we did the full text, sat for the Cambridge Lit. exam.. and loved it. So maybe it could be a nice thought to start off without the intricacies of the langauge and then work your way up to the entire book. I admire the effort.

I don't know. It seems to me it would be better to read books on your level initially, then read the classics when you're ready to read them. I have a 4-year-old nephew - I would prefer that he didn't try to tackle say, LES MISERABLES until he's ready, but in the meantime, there are many wonderful books for children he can easily comprehend & enjoy.

In my house, Amy we have the reverse situation, my 10-year-old has a high-school reading level, but not the maturity to handle much of his reading level material. We are constantly trying to find things for him that he can reasonably be expected to relate with, and quite often he winds up "reading down" in order for me to be certain he doesn't get in over his head. He read some of the Children's Adaptations of classics several years ago, which helped him springboard into the real things - the Treasure I land, Robinson Crusoe, mostly adventure-type things. We tend to read new things together much of the time, helping me to monitor content, too. Once we find an "acceptable" author, based on both our requirements, Mark tends to exhaust all their works. Keeps me hopping! Oh, DTBT, I guess my point is that unexpectedly, I found a purpose in these versions of the "classics", but I'm pleased that we haven't used them as the end, but rather the means to get to know the real things,.

" in these versions of the "classics", but I'm pleased that we haven't used them as the end, but rather the means to get to know the real things,. " Thank you Cindy, my point exactly.

Any other K. Arthur fans out there? Guilty! Too bad I hadn't seen your post before lunch today, Amy! Took my touring companions miles out of our way to visit the digs at Cadbury, only to find that it had already been filled in and returned to farmland again. :-( Jenny, I believe "The Magic Flute=Die Zauberfl�te"" was originally done in German...Der Vogelf�nger bin ich ja...done for the amusement of ordinary people. Das ist richtig. (sp?)