Aakash
As soon as the project began, it was very clear that our entire group had very similar ideas. Each one of us did not want to change the context of the play, but still make it more apparent to a modern audience. We also wanted to condense it as much as possible, without greatly changing the plot or story line. Our goal was to make the play as concise as possible, and retain as much of the dramatic tension and impact as possible. In order to do this, we had to address the audience, form, and context of our new piece of radically revised work.
Our first creative choice as a group was about the type of language that we were going to use. We decided to write using modern words with slight embellishments. We did this in order to appeal to our audience. The text that we are creating is for a modern or future audience. We chose to write using modern language in order to highlight the plot. The storyline of Two Noble Kinsmen is very rich, we felt that the early modern English used in the play confused the audience and distracted the audience, we wanted to focus their attention on the story as a whole – rather than the words. At the same time, we decided to use slight embellishments to give the text an ‘aged’ feel. We made this choice because the actors still made use of swords and armour. We decided to make the text look ‘aged’ in order to prevent the audience from feeling that the text is anachronistic. I found it very difficult to constantly stick to this choice of language. I found that the process required first writing it in a modern context, and then adding the embellishments. This process took a lot of time, and it was difficult to make the entire text flow and seem as if it was written by a single person. Even though it was a challenge. I am very happy about our choice of language, form, and tone.
Our choice to condense the text was borne largely from our shared belief that the play was ridiculously superfluous in many ways. For example, we reduced the entirety of Act 3, Scene 4, to a single line. Most of the time, these extra lines carried no weight, and did not change the story at all. These lines showed the prowess of Shakespeare’s writing skill. This superfluity and extravagance in Shakespeare’s writing is reminiscent of the subtleties and intricacies that defined the Victorian artistic world. Two Noble Kinsmen was first published in 1634, and was clearly written during the that period. It is very common for written work and to emulate the trends of the other fine arts of its time (including architecture and fashion). We felt that while Shakespeare’s and Fletcher’s Two Noble Kinsmen reflected the art world in 1634, we wanted to similarly emulate the modern art landscape. The 21st century artistic landscape has been dominated by minimalism. By condensing our text, I feel that our writing emulates the art world in a similar way that Shakespeare and Fletcher did.
Another discussion that we had, as a group was the choice to reduce the number of characters within the play. Although it might have been interesting to have a single person play multiple characters, I decided that this would be too confusing, and may completely change the dramatic impact of the play. Especially if we did not fully consider the impact of each character. For example, if we removed the Jailor’s daughter from the play, we could lose the tension created by her character. When I was reading the play, I found the that the Jailor’s daughter would make me question many things within the play. I wondered whether if the jailor’s daughter fell for Palamon, perhaps all girls liked Palamon just a little bit more… Perhaps because she fell for Palamon, it is now Arcite’s turn to find love… Perhaps because the jailor’s daughter loves Palamon, he will change his mind and they will end up together – leaving Emilia for Arcite… These thoughts represent a few of the hundreds of questions I had when reading the text. These internal thoughts I had served to
intrigue me and drive my interest in the play – giving me the motivation and reason to continue reading. By removing minor characters, I did not want to lose this tension. However, in many cases, there were characters that we could not justify as we could do with the jailor’s daughter. Examples of characters that we chose to remove from the play include the jailor and the wooer.
One of the greatest difficulties we had condensing the text was that we had to be extremely clear and precise. Each phrase had to be traced easily. Because our play was shorter, there was no room for ambiguous language. It took us several hours to ensure that every aspect of the play that we decided to include was absolutely integral, and appropriate. Even though we were condensing the play, we had to keep in mind that the new text that we were writing was in the context of a class about friendship. In order to reflect this, we paid very close attention to what we decided was the principal friendship in this text: Palamon and Arcite. Even though we were cutting down the text a lot, we did not want to remove anything that added value to the friendship between the two. We did not want to marginalize this great friendship in our quest to make the play as concise as possible.
One example of this is in the scene I was primarily responsible for, Act 3, Scene 6. In the original play when Theseus comes across Palamon and Arcite about to fight, Hippolyta, Emilia and Pithorous beg Theseus to take mercy on the two noble kinsmen. This pleading goes on for several pages. In order to make the play concise, I decided to have Theseus enter the scene, saying that he had been looking for Palamon and Arcite, because Hippolyta and Emilia had already begged him, and his heart had been moved by them, so he would offer them the chance to be banished. This choice greatly condenses the play. But does not marginalize the Arcite and Palamon. The argument that ensues about how
banishment is not an appropriate punishment, and the resolution to instead hold a trial-by- combat, is then displayed in all of it’s original glory.
In addition to these larger issues, we had smaller discussions about our choice between calling Emilia, ‘Emiliy’ in Act 3, Scene 1 and 2, as Shakespeare does. We decided that it would be in line with our goals to make the text clearer that we keep the same names.
We also had a discussion about whether it was best to use the word “Exeunt.” or to replace it with the modern “Exit.” In this case, we decided that it was better to use “Exeunt” because it’s meaning is much more precise than the multitude of different things the word “Exit.” can refer to. It is also another way of making the text seem more ‘aged’. Later, we discovered that “exeo” is the Latin verb: “to go out”. I learnt “exeo”, “exit”, and “exeunt” translated to “I go out,” “He goes out,” and “they go out,” respectively. Luckily, our choice to use the modern “Exit.” was still valid and correct. However, the experience served as an eerie reminder of how intricate and precise the original Two Noble Kinsmen was. It reminded me that in our drive to simplify, shorten and minimize his work, we may have unintentionally misinterpreted some of his work. If we misinterpreted his use of the word “Exit.”, what more could we also have misinterpreted? However, I feel that just as this experience ended positively, in that our interpretation was still correct; I feel that our revision of his work is still brilliant. Misinterpreting something, is simply interpreting it differently – this does not mean it is incorrect. Our difference in interpretation will add a different light and spin to his work, just like Shakespeare and Fletcher did to Chaucer.
In conclusion, this exercise was extremely beneficial and lead to many revelations about the intensity with which we should scrutinize every last literary decision that we should make when revising, or writing a piece of text. This exercise to share our interpretation of Act 1, Scene 3, also showed us how many ways a single text could be revised – we realized this when we heard the work of our peers. I am very happy that I got the chance to work on a project like this.
