BradR5595’s Comments (group member since Jan 06, 2016)

BradR5595’s comments from the Ms. A's Advanced English Book Discussions group.

I agree with what Jaydan saying that they are far to many similarities to say that it is not an adaptation. I like how you include the definition of it. I agree that it doesn't have to be an exact replication, to be an adaptation. Also how not just the main events are the exact same, but the secondary events can be seen in both stories if you look hard enough.

I think that the Lion King can be considered a adaptation of if. It follows much of the same story line as Hamlet's and the changes that are made is because it is a children story and they want to make it a little happier then Hamlet. Many of the same characters are relateable such as Simba and Hamlet. Both had there fathers kill, are banished from the kingdom, meet a ghost and come back to take their kingdom back. Also Scar and Claudius are very similar, they both come up with plans to kill the king, take the throne, and in the end get killed from what they have done in the past.

Other similarities that are shown are that the king banishes them from the kingdom. Whether it is Hamlet to England or Scar telling Simba to run away. In both stories the main character is met by a ghost that tells them to go back and avenge their fathers death. Also in the end the person helping the villain turns against them. Laeretes turns against Claudius as he is dying and the Hyenas turn against scar at the end of it.

Liz wrote: "I feel that I did really well. I had memorized it front to back and back to front, so it was easy to recite. I think that the memorization and presentation was the easiest for me. Being in the play..."

I agreed with most of Liz's post. Being in the play I feel would help me to feel more confident. Well it would be easier to do Shakespeare back then it still wouldn't have been easy. Like today, just because it is in the same language or ascent we use today doesn't make it easy, it just makes it easier.

I thought I did good from where I started earlier in the week. I had to stop and think once but you have to assume that will happen. I felt I did good on keeping a good pace and not having to stop and think beside the one time. That comes with repetition and just saying it over and over to yourself. Well it does change from saying it to yourself to others, the more comfortable you are with it the better. The challenge for me was that it wasn't so black and white, it was very open ended and different to what I have done before. It is not something you can say you are going to get done in one sort time, you have to keep working on it all the way leading up to when you say it. It is between you and yourself, no one else is involved in you getting it memorized.

I think it would be difficult for anyone to perform Shakespeare, but easier then then now. It is the language they would have used at the time so it would have been easier for them to pick up on the lines. If you gave someone during Shakespeare time a play from today they would find it difficult because it is not written how they would say it, it is how we would say it. It just give me a greater appreciation for actors and how they learn all the lines. If it takes this long for us to learn 16 lines, it is hard to memorize a whole play. Well doing that to also get the emotions and actions would be extremely difficult, plus having an audience or anyone that will see it in the future judging you. We don't give actors the appreciation they deserve.

I think that the Mel Gibson version represents the meaning and tone that Shakespeare was going for. When I thought of it I picture the dark room with him shouting at himself. I think that the other versions don't work because in is light our in both and they are both whispering. I don't really think that they get into the part, it is like they are just saying word on a paper. They are monotone and sound like they could care less. I also think that he tomb helps to set the mood that he is trying to speak in, depressed and close to killing himself. In the others even thought they both have knifes its just not the same when they are in a nice setting by the sea or in a nice building dressed in a suit.

Kennedy wrote: "Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"
I believe that William Shakespeare was alive during the time of the wr..."

I have to agree with you, the actually author might have been worried what others thought. Also I agree if someone is that skilled how is their daughter not educated. It just doesn't add up with all he is said to have written.

Brockj wrote: "I think he was a real person, but I do not believe the William Shakespeare wrote all of these works. Although all of the articles we read gave sufficient evidence, the fact that stood out the most ..."

I agree with you that without a proper education how could he have written all the works that he did. It is not possible to learn many of the languages need to write the works that he did and he wouldn't have gotten that at the local school.

Jaydan wrote: "Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"

I do not believe William Shakespeare wrote the plays that he has cred..."

That is a very valid point, why would he not keep track of something that is so important. It is like he doesn't want people to know that he was the writer or take credit for his work.

Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"
I don't think that Shakespeare did write the plays. I think that he was a real person and that he was alive during the time but didn't write these works. How would he have been fluent in many different languages need to write the works he did. All he would have gone to is the local village school and would have learned a little Latin and Greek. He also writes about being at sea, but was never at sea. There is evidence of him as an actor, but not as a paid writer. Plus it is not even known how he spelled his name since the only evidence of his writing is six illegible signatures.