In an effort to conclude our current debate on whether or not Americans can do Shakespeare, I'd like to reflect on an unrelated letter that recently appeared in the New York Times Magazine.
Andrew Charig commented on the corruption of language:
In Error-Proof, Ammon Shea suggests invoking Chaucer and Shakespeare as a defense against criticisms of bad grammar because they used so many obsolete forms that almost any error can be found among their works. But Shakespeare wrote before English was standardized; Chaucer before it was English at all.
I think this hammers home the point that Shakespeare's English is not our English - neither that of the UK nor the USA. Rather, Shakespeare's influence is buried with equal depth in both accents. And of course, the wide range of regional accents in both countries must surely highlight the impossibility of attaching a specific dialect to Shakespeare's language.
Perhaps what English people mean when they say "Americans can't do Shakespeare" is "we don't the idea of foreigners doing it!" ... That said, I don't know what Nicolas Cage's excuse is!
... or perhaps we can agree to disagree?
Comments