Tlingit Shakespeare

Well, it's in English, so I can read the words, but someone is going to have to explain what this means? :haha:

Smithsonian wrote:

HURLY-BURLY
A troupe of Tlingit actors takes the stage at the American Indian museum, March 8 through 18, in a new production of Macbeth reimagined with dances, drums and costumes of southeast Alaska's Native people.

Italics, theirs.

I'm gobsmacked. :eek: What is Macbeth reimagined? Somebody takes Macbeth and changes it so it's not Macbeth? wtf? Why?
If they say were doing an original work, they won't sell as many seats, but name dropping will draw a crowd?

To hunt, or pig out--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
Seakdivers BBQ and outrageous portions
Or to take alka-seltzer with a sea of bubbles
And by opposing burp them. To die for, to sleep--
No more--tossing and turning to say we end
The heartburn, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to.

Yeah, I know it's Hamlet, but I reimagined it.

Dude. This is OUTSIDER ART which, even when terrible to the point of puke, is totally hip. It may even be terminally hip, coz I don't know from hip. This seems a bit like peanutbutter art---kinda dry and bullshitty and doesn't go down well without some jelly.

Look. Some people want to "re-imagine" Dr. Faust as Brad Pitt---same kinda thing.

BTW--for my money--Faust would be played by either Christopher Walken or Harvey Keitel.

The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry 'Hold, hold!'

That's my point, but you forgot to reimagine. :lol:

Shakespeare is universal enough to be re-imagined and performed in many different ways.

If you are arguing for some kind of "purity" in performing Shakespeare, you are defeated from the beginning, because there was never any attempt in his own day to portray the times where plays were set accurately.

This is part of the 6-month Shakespeare in Washington festival. I almost went to see King Lear there in my trip, but unfortunately I got snowed in. That performance was by the Harlem Classical Theatre and was set in ancient Mesopotamia (as opposed to ancient Britain as Shakespeare wrote it). So what? Did you know that for 150 years King Lear was performed with a happy ending?

See first statement.

My brain has just folded in on itself. Our resident sexgoddess is schooling xob on Outsider art, and noone has yet mentioned the AWESOME remaking of Macbeth that is:

my brain just misfired.

Scotland, PA.

Put it on your Queue now. Do not post on this thread until you've seen the movie.

This thread is hereby clsoed to anyone who hasn't seen the movie.

Go! Shoo!
Scat!

xoxoxoBruce;321088 wrote:

Well, it's in English, so I can read the words, but someone is going to have to explain what this means? :haha:
Italics, theirs.

I'm gobsmacked. :eek: What is Macbeth reimagined?

Like Ian McKellen's Richard III in a WWII-ish setting.

Cloud;321116 wrote:

Shakespeare is universal enough to be re-imagined and performed in many different ways.

If you are arguing for some kind of "purity" in performing Shakespeare, you are defeated from the beginning, because there was never any attempt in his own day to portray the times where plays were set accurately.

This is part of the 6-month Shakespeare in Washington festival. I almost went to see King Lear there in my trip, but unfortunately I got snowed in. That performance was by the Harlem Classical Theatre and was set in ancient Mesopotamia (as opposed to ancient Britain as Shakespeare wrote it). So what? Did you know that for 150 years King Lear was performed with a happy ending?

See first statement.

If it's reimagined and played in many different ways, it ain't Macbeth. A million plays, movies, and TV shows have done the same basic treachery and tragedy, of the rich and famous, story line without alluding to being based on Macbeth. But of course they didn't have to fit into the theme of a, "6-month Shakespeare in Washington festival". That would sort of explain it.

I don't give a hoot about keeping Shakespeare "pure", they weren't meant to be "the classics" in their day, as I understand it. Just entertainment for anyone willing to cough up a coin to keep Willie from starving or getting a day job.

It's going to take a hell of a lot of re-imagining to make Macbeth a musical, in the Tlingit tradition. Are you sure those red devils aren't stealing our culture?:lol2:

I have no idea of what this whole Tlinget/ Shakespeare thing is about - they are probably from Juneau or Ketchikan, not Sitka.

I like the ode to my BBQ! ;)

Thank You. :blush:

what, you don't think the Tlingit people can relate to madness, murder, and betrayal?

I'm just happy to see Shakespeare played at all, and happy that disparate cultures can embrace it.

What about Romeo and Juliette? That's been redone so many times it's not funny. Along with many many many other shakespeare plays.

Every mills and boon novel is a taming of the shrew (just about).

Not to mention that practically every high school student has to create their own interpretation of one or the other of shakespeares plays.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. It's interpretational theatre. That's an expression of self, or in other words, art.

footfootfoot;321123 wrote:

My brain has just folded in on itself. Our resident sexgoddess is schooling xob on Outsider art, and noone has yet mentioned the AWESOME remaking of Macbeth that is:

my brain just misfired.

Scotland, PA.

Put it on your Queue now. Do not post on this thread until you've seen the movie.

This thread is hereby clsoed to anyone who hasn't seen the movie.

Go! Shoo!
Scat!

I love this movie. An insurance reviewer recommended it to me. It was the second film I rented from Netflix. Absolutely everyone must see this movie.

xoxoxoBruce;321088 wrote:

I'm gobsmacked. :eek: What is Macbeth reimagined? Somebody takes Macbeth and changes it so it's not Macbeth? wtf? Why?
If they say were doing an original work, they won't sell as many seats, but name dropping will draw a crowd?

It could be worse.

It could be in Klingon.

Shakespeare being so well known has caused any number of theatre directors to feel the need to do something about the same old play seen over and over and over again, so they change the setting presumably to underline the universality of the themes. The "modern day" reimagining has been about done to death, but sometimes, a quirky film like Scotland, PA, takes things to a totally new level. Shakespeare is about the story and the emotion, not about the tights and doublet. Even Hamlet, which you'd think would be sacrosanct, has gotten the modern update treatment more than once. Akira Kurosawa steals a plotline from Shakespeare and he's brilliant, a bunch of guys in furs and feathers do it and it's mindboggling?

When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way, from your first cigarette to your last dyin' day

I'd actually kind of like to see the Tlinglit Macbeth.

Cloud;321167 wrote:

what, you don't think the Tlingit people can relate to madness, murder, and betrayal?

Of course they can, they've been dealing with whites for hundreds of years.

I'm just happy to see Shakespeare played at all, and happy that disparate cultures can embrace it.

Why? Is this to their benefit in some way? Is no culture complete unless a smidgen of Shakespeare is shaken, not stirred, in to the mix?

Aliantha;321205 wrote:

What about Romeo and Juliette? That's been redone so many times it's not funny. Along with many many many other shakespeare plays.
Every mills and boon novel is a taming of the shrew (just about).
Not to mention that practically every high school student has to create their own interpretation of one or the other of shakespeares plays.
I'm not sure what the problem is here. It's interpretational theatre. That's an expression of self, or in other words, art.

But why have these same plays been done to death? Why are they interpreted ad nausea? It's an expression of self to rehash the same thing again? You can't do it uniquely enough to be entirely original, because it's been done by so many, and still be recognizable as Shakespeare.

wolf;321213 wrote:

Shakespeare being so well known has caused any number of theatre directors to feel the need to do something about the same old play seen over and over and over again, so they change the setting presumably to underline the universality of the themes. ~snip~
When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way, from your first cigarette to your last dyin' day

I think your on to it, there.

OK, what is the value of Shakespeare? Why are the plays the subject of such adulation, the subject of countless lectures and the top dogs for actors?

They are old? No, lots of old writings aren't nearly revered.

The costumes? Nope, that even changes from production to production that are trying to maintain as much authenticity as possible.

The language? Strange sentence structure, words and spelling are pretty unique to that time, but if you're going to reimagine them, that uniqueness is lost.

The characters? Yeah, but if you reimagine the characters into a new time, place, and background, they aren't the same characters.

Plot/story line? Yes, those are timeless, founded in oral traditions, of the Minstrels and storytellers. They describe the basic truths about people, what they respond to, what makes them tick and the human condition.
I don't know if Willie was the first to put these basic plot lines on paper? Maybe he did it in a more entertaining way that anyone else had done. Or maybe he was in the right place at the right time, with a head full of plots and a command of the language, when the public was ready.

Yeah, I guess that must be it. When a theatrical production touches on any of those basic plot lines, Shakespeare gets credit, or name dropped, even though nothing else about the production, even remotely parallels Willie's originals.

xoxoxoBruce;321307 wrote:

Yeah, I guess that must be it. When a theatrical production touches on any of those basic plot lines, Shakespeare gets credit, or name dropped, even though nothing else about the production, even remotely parallels Willie's originals.

Um, if they are deliberately reimagining Shakespeare, then he should get credit.

'oH vam [a] [dagger] [which] jIH legh qaSpa' jIH


I need a better translator.

Happy Monkey;321349 wrote:

Um, if they are deliberately reimagining Shakespeare, then he should get credit.

If I melt down a Ford into an ingot, then stamp out a Chevy, Ford should get credit? They have similar design elements, 4 wheels, engine, doors, etc. :confused:

What makes you think that is what's happening? It's still Macbeth, as far as I can see.

Griff;321362 wrote:

'oH vam [a] [dagger] [which] jIH legh qaSpa' jIH


I need a better translator.

They're working on it.

What makes Shakespeare so great is that his plays work, half a millennia after he wrote them. They deal with universal and fundamental human truths (that and knob gags)

Reinterpretation is just that.....it's taking the essence and applying it to a new setting, or using it to illuminate something in the now. I don't see it as a problem. I've seen some stunning ...and also awful...reinterpretations of Shakespeare's plays, both as straight drama, musical presentations and even a mime....(don't ask). I think it's great, that hundreds of years after MacBeth was first performed in England, a culture wholly alien to that England is drawing from that tradition and melding it with their own. Brilliant. Hope it works:)

BTW--for my money--Faust would be played by either Christopher Walken or Harvey Keitel.

ooooh.....Walken definately.

I'm really frustrated with this thread. I don't understand what you are on about, Bruce, frankly. If you don't understand the value of Shakespeare, why do you care?

And I just flat out disagree that it stops being Shakespeare, or meaningful, if it is reinterpreted, no matter how outre. Furthermore, you might as well get over your distaste (or whatever it is), because he will continue to be reinterpreted, forever, if humanity is lucky. No one is making you see the thing, after all. I was actually disappointed when I found out my trip to DC was not going to intersect with its run.

I also really, LOATHE arguing for argument's sake, although I know a lot of people get into it. I was hoping this thread would die so I wouldn't feel the need to post again in it.

Bruce, if people didn't see the value in reinterpreting other people's work, there'd never be any cover bands. There'd never be ballets like swan lake for example. Imagine if every opera you ever saw was a new one and not ever a classic from one of the masters.

People enjoy classic anything and so there will always be rebirths of classics. Sometimes in their original form, and sometimes with a new twist...just for originality.

That's it for me on this one.

I'm really frustrated with this thread. I don't understand what you are on about, Bruce, frankly.

Oh, sounds like a personal problem. Maybe you were mistaken about that....Just like you're mistaken about the thread.

If you don't understand the value of Shakespeare, why do you care?

So your one of the, it's wonderful, it must be 'cause everybody says so. I can't tell you why, because I don't know, but I know its wonderful, crowd. OK, your off the hook, maybe somebody else knows.

And I just flat out disagree that it stops being Shakespeare, or meaningful, if it is reinterpreted, no matter how outre.

I'm sure you do. Since you don't know why it's good, you certainly wouldn't know when it isn't. Do you have a bumper sticker that says, "A bad play of Shakespeare is better than a good day at work"?

Furthermore, you might as well get over your distaste (or whatever it is), because he will continue to be reinterpreted, forever, if humanity is lucky.

I suppose they will, but I'm not stupid enough to say it was wonderful when some of them fuck it up. Humanity? Good grief.

No one is making you see the thing, after all.

Yes they are, the same ones that forced you come back and defend Willie's honor.

I was actually disappointed when I found out my trip to DC was not going to intersect with its run.

Yes, that's a shame, but I assure you, that's not my fault either.

I also really, LOATHE arguing for argument's sake, although I know a lot of people get into it. I was hoping this thread would die so I wouldn't feel the need to post again in it.

It's such a tragedy it didn't end, so you wouldn't be assaulted by those arm twisters. But if you had shed some light instead of just creating heat, it might have been.

Now where did I say I disliked Shakespeare? Hmmm I can't find it, can you?
The discussion was not whether Willie wrote nice plays, nobody was saying he didn't. The question was, and still is, how much reimagining can you do before it's not Shakespeare any more, because we don't agree on that.

This is why I wanted to reach some sort of consensus of what makes Shakespeare unique. I gave my deductions on what the core values are, that makes Shakespeare special, but you would rather shrill......heretic..... blasphemy, than contribute to rational discussion. pity. :eyebrow:

personally I love the double entandres and general twists of phrase, the beautiful flow of words. there in lies alot of the problem with 're-imagining' it. it lacks the lyrical quality and depth of the original, like a highschool choir covering queen... yeah it can be done.. and to some degree I think it ought to be tried to inspire and challenge the artists involved.. but should it be done in public? perhaps not. the themes presented in willies works are universal to all humanity and cultures, which is why the persevere and hopefully will continue to do so.

loves me some willie s.

Here'a another reimagining of Shakespeare.

HM, I just followed the link on your sig. The Crayon eating cartoon...That's fucking funny man.

Check that....I just followed the rest of your link. Good stuff HM. Fight the good fight.

Do you ever want to sing, "HAPPY Monk-eh to yah, HAPPY Monk-eh to yah" in the style of Stevie Wonder....?

Or is it just me?

[SIZE="1"][COLOR="Gray"](btw I know it was sung about Martin Luther King but Wonder made it a pop song, not me)[/COLOR][/SIZE]

DanaC;321886 wrote:

HM, I just followed the link on your sig. The Crayon eating cartoon...That's fucking funny man.

Heh, yeah. Bob kicks ass. I've had that one for a while, though. May be time to put in a new one.

Sundae Girl;321891 wrote:

Do you ever want to sing, "HAPPY Monk-eh to yah, HAPPY Monk-eh to yah" in the style of Stevie Wonder....?

Or is it just me?[SIZE=1][COLOR=Gray][/COLOR][/SIZE]

It hadn't occurred... Perhaps it will now...

cowhead;321635 wrote:

personally I love the double entandres and general twists of phrase, the beautiful flow of words. there in lies alot of the problem with 're-imagining' it. it lacks the lyrical quality and depth of the original, like a highschool choir covering queen... yeah it can be done.. and to some degree I think it ought to be tried to inspire and challenge the artists involved.. but should it be done in public? perhaps not. the themes presented in willies works are universal to all humanity and cultures, which is why the persevere and hopefully will continue to do so.

loves me some willie s.

That's what I thought, the unique language and word play defines Shakespeare more than the plot lines. That may be because the plot lines have been done so many ways, in so many mediums, they aren't unique to Willie's plays any more.

But then I'm told all that can change and still be Shakespeare. That's why I was trying to break down what makes Shakespeare, Shakespeare. But no help there, just nay sayers. I'm waiting for HM to tell us what the Tlingit show was like. :cool:

LoL

Shakespeare

reimagined

I fully support their right to sing and dance Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna get off my ass.

Aw c'mon, just a short video....oh, with sound, please. :D

Rumor has it, you might not be able to get a ticket, so be prepared to gate crash, ok?

If it's a hit, maybe they'll tour.

footfootfoot;321123 wrote:

My brain has just folded in on itself. Our resident sexgoddess is schooling xob on Outsider art, and noone has yet mentioned the AWESOME remaking of Macbeth that is:

my brain just misfired.

Scotland, PA.

Put it on your Queue now. Do not post on this thread until you've seen the movie.

This thread is hereby clsoed to anyone who hasn't seen the movie.

Go! Shoo!
Scat!

saw it last night:

OMG... we're just underachievers making up for lost time.

... thought I was gonna die!

I'm actually an actor in Macbeth, I play Malcolm. We've had good responses, not a great review but with the Washington Post I hear a not great review is excellent.

I'm thinking there are a couple things that interest me: 1) I'm surprised and a little excited that people even care enough to offer a few passing thoughts. 2) I'm curious how people have thoughts on something they presumably won't see or haven't seen, or don't know the contexts. Is that how most of these blogs go? Opinions but without context or experience?

I can agree mostly with disappointment at Shakespeare being "reimagined" for its own sake. I hate Shakespeare in a Nazi camp or on the moon just because that's what a director wanted to do. That's why I didn't really like Ian McKellen's Richard III. But I LOVED Kurasawa's Throne of Blood. It depends on what you do with it, I suppose.

But, clearly, there are opinions on this thing without folks actually having a chance to see it for themselves. I'd love it for folks to see it and gain their own perspectives. Otherwise, what's the point of even a passing thought on the thing? The energy it takes to type on a keyboard and post a blog? To take time out of the day to read other people's thoughts on something they haven't seen? To form an opinion on something that is imagined, self-constructed? If you hate it, why not hate it for what it is, or love it for what it is.

It's been great to be a part of this play, for me, personally. Generally, the audiences have been great, and the cast has been a great group. I'm excited that we are sparking some debate, striking some cord. Thanks.

Ishmael

Ishmael;323516 wrote:

I'm actually an actor in Macbeth, I play Malcolm. We've had good responses, not a great review but with the Washington Post I hear a not great review is excellent.

Congratulations, and thanks for visiting here.

I'm thinking there are a couple things that interest me: 1) I'm surprised and a little excited that people even care enough to offer a few passing thoughts.

Me too. Got myself into quite a lot of trouble over it, too. Yes, real people still read Shakespeare and attend the plays, and care enough to argue passionately about it.

I'm curious how people have thoughts on something they presumably won't see or haven't seen, or don't know the contexts. Is that how most of these blogs go? Opinions but without context or experience?

Yep. That's pretty much how it is. In Real Life, too.

Ishmael;323516 wrote:

I'm actually an actor in Macbeth, I play Malcolm. We've had good responses, not a great review but with the Washington Post I hear a not great review is excellent.

Congratulations, and welcome to the Cellar, Ishmael. :D

I'm thinking there are a couple things that interest me: 1) I'm surprised and a little excited that people even care enough to offer a few passing thoughts. 2) I'm curious how people have thoughts on something they presumably won't see or haven't seen, or don't know the contexts. Is that how most of these blogs go? Opinions but without context or experience?

I assume you've read the thread. If you have, then you should know it's not about you, your production. The announcement of your production, which I opened with, only sparked the question of reimagining Shakespeare. As you said, it's been done often with mixed results.

My question is, if you change (reimagine) the costumes and language to a different context, a different setting/era/culture, how can it still be called Shakespeare? It's a different play. Is it the plot that makes Shakespeare, Shakespeare?

Hell. I'm no theater expert by any means, but I agreed with cowhead, that the language, the dialect, the word play, were always an important part of the experience of watching one of Willie's plays.

So that brought me back to the same question? How much can you reimagine one of his plays, how much can be changed and still consider it Shakespeare? Of course to know that, you have to know what's necessary to keep.
Since you have working knowledge, (ok sorry, that was a bad pun) of the play(s), can you help me out here?

I can agree mostly with disappointment at Shakespeare being "reimagined" for its own sake. I hate Shakespeare in a Nazi camp or on the moon just because that's what a director wanted to do. That's why I didn't really like Ian McKellen's Richard III. But I LOVED Kurasawa's Throne of Blood. It depends on what you do with it, I suppose.

But, clearly, there are opinions on this thing without folks actually having a chance to see it for themselves. I'd love it for folks to see it and gain their own perspectives. Otherwise, what's the point of even a passing thought on the thing? The energy it takes to type on a keyboard and post a blog? To take time out of the day to read other people's thoughts on something they haven't seen? To form an opinion on something that is imagined, self-constructed? If you hate it, why not hate it for what it is, or love it for what it is.

This tells me you did think it was about your production, which is not the case at all.

It's been great to be a part of this play, for me, personally. Generally, the audiences have been great, and the cast has been a great group. I'm excited that we are sparking some debate, striking some cord. Thanks.

Ishmael

Glad you had fun, that's a great reward in itself. Yes, you have sparked a debate. Cloud was appalled that I could question Shakespeare in any form, but why not? You said there were some reimagined productions you didn't care for, so evidently you agree there must be some line that should not be crossed. Saying Shakespeare on the marque doesn't guarantee a good show.

A million thanks for stopping in. If I'd known, I'd of had a beer for you. I'm really hoping you'll stop back an give us the benefit of your knowledge, trying to come up with at least a rough answer to my questions. Even if you feel it's just your opinion, I'd like to hear it. Thanks again...oh, and break a leg. :D

PS, are they recording video, or even audio, of any of the performances? If not, please put a bug in their ear....only two days left.

Cloud;323591 wrote:

snip~
Me too. Got myself into quite a lot of trouble over it, too. ~snip

No you didn't. You scolded me and I told you to go to hell. So what? :p
Just because I'm obnoxious, doesn't mean your in trouble....at least not with me.

barefoot serpent;322448 wrote:

saw it last night:

OMG... we're just underachievers making up for lost time.

... thought I was gonna die!

Did you see the director's interview at the end:
"We basically made this movie for stoners who just read the Cliff notes.!"

Brianna;321091 wrote:

Dude. This is OUTSIDER ART which, even when terrible to the point of puke, is totally hip. It may even be terminally hip, coz I don't know from hip. This seems a bit like peanutbutter art---kinda dry and bullshitty and doesn't go down well without some jelly.

:)

[It's really hard to give an appreciative look on the net.]

Bruce, you wrote that it's not about me or the production. I guess you're right, but on the other hand, I'm wondering what you assume "reimagining" means. The play is about 60 per cent translated into Tlingit, while the soliliquies and Macbeth and Lady Macbeth in their scenes together are in English. The idea being that there is a change when individuals choose to break from the group.

You see, it's not reimagined for its own sake-- the play does indeed highlight someone's fatal personal ambition. Putting others before the self is a huge value in the Tlingit culture.

I've been told by someone I respect, a poet named Robert Bringhurst, that you can dislike literature all you want, but it's like disliking food or air, if you don't use it you'll get sick. I think about this when folks try to use the old "dead white irrelevant man" argument for Shakespeare. Go ahead and dislike him, or "challenge the status quo". Your loss.

On the other hand, there are great, great poets, writers, artists, unrecognized. I'm thinking of the great oral poets of my area, in Southeast Alaska. Some are survived in texts waiting to be retranslated over and over again for each new generation, and perhaps read by those who learn the original language. I hope, as we gain more recognition, and bring out new artists, that we can bring out that side of the culture.

Thanks,
Ishmael

Ishmael, as Bruce asked about, I hope that you'll post a video (at least a part of it), or a link of a video, of your troupe's performance. I think I speak for a lot of us that we'd love to see it.

Also, will you take this show on the road?

Ishmael;323810 wrote:

Bruce, you wrote that it's not about me or the production. I guess you're right, but on the other hand, I'm wondering what you assume "reimagining" means. The play is about 60 per cent translated into Tlingit, while the soliliquies and Macbeth and Lady Macbeth in their scenes together are in English. The idea being that there is a change when individuals choose to break from the group.

What we say here has no effect on the real world, it's just personal views of how the real world is unfolding. These threads can be misleading, rather than flow, they meander like a brook. A cocktail party, not a scholarly forum, but that's OK, because we don't pretend otherwise.

We couldn't know how your production reimagined Macbeth. That's why we couldn't discuss it particularly, only the concept of reimagining and of course other attempts we've been exposed to, will color opinions.

You see, it's not reimagined for its own sake-- the play does indeed highlight someone's fatal personal ambition. Putting others before the self is a huge value in the Tlingit culture.

Your description sounds like a cool concept. I would think the viewer would have to understand Tlingit or be familiar with Macbeth first, to follow it.
Makes me ponder whether you're importing Shakespeare into Tlingit or Tlingit into Shakespeare. Maybe importing Tlingit into America's consciousness, via Shakespeare.
Caution - Do not try to determine this, while stoned! :rollanim:

I've been told by someone I respect, a poet named Robert Bringhurst, that you can dislike literature all you want, but it's like disliking food or air, if you don't use it you'll get sick. I think about this when folks try to use the old "dead white irrelevant man" argument for Shakespeare. Go ahead and dislike him, or "challenge the status quo". Your loss.

Fair enough. Likening literature to air & food is appropriate. We all know there is a vast range in the quality of all three...... preferances too.
I don't drink coffee, preferring to get my caffine elsewhere. But I realize the vast majority use coffee.... I'm cool with that and neither condemn them nor defend myself. We both wonder about those decaf drinkers, though.

On the other hand, there are great, great poets, writers, artists, unrecognized. I'm thinking of the great oral poets of my area, in Southeast Alaska. Some are survived in texts waiting to be retranslated over and over again for each new generation, and perhaps read by those who learn the original language. I hope, as we gain more recognition, and bring out new artists, that we can bring out that side of the culture.

Thanks,
Ishmael

Yes, I touched briefly on oral traditions in Europe, wondering if Shakespeare was the first to put their age old human conflicts in written English. At least in entertaining stories people would remember.
I should think these human foibles would show up in the campfire tales and bedtime stories of every culture. Could be the basis of many religions, too.

You said. "....retranslated over and over again for each new generation, and perhaps read by those who learn the original language." Are you referring to being translated, literally, into different languages? Or the lessons they contain, the wisdom they carry, being translated into how it can apply to the readers life?
Obviously, oral stories that survive, do so because they struck a chord with each person that passed it on. Contain wisdom and humor every generation could identify with.

Again, a million thanks, for spending a little time to entertain and educate us on another little piece of the world. Hopefully, someone at the Smithsonian is smart enough to capture and preserve one of your performances. :ipray:

Makes me ponder whether you're importing Shakespeare into Tlingit or Tlingit into Shakespeare. Maybe importing Tlingit into America's consciousness, via Shakespeare.

Bruce, I would hope it's all three, and more.

You said. "....retranslated over and over again for each new generation, and perhaps read by those who learn the original language." Are you referring to being translated, literally, into different languages? Or the lessons they contain, the wisdom they carry, being translated into how it can apply to the readers life?

Both. Translations can't help but be a generational interpretation. Last generation's Ciardi translation of Dante's Inferno gives way to Pinsky's.

Again, a million thanks, for spending a little time to entertain and educate us on another little piece of the world. Hopefully, someone at the Smithsonian is smart enough to capture and preserve one of your performances.

Yes, we've videotaped. Watch out for sealaskaheritage.org when it starts being available in the months ahead.

Thanks,
Ishmael

I'm glad to hear it was videotaped, it's certainly peaked my curiosity and I'll bet at least a few others. If you think of it, give us a heads up when sealaskaheritage.org becomes available.

Thanks again for your patience, and stop by once in a while when you're bored, we're always asking questions. :D