I got interested in this idea since I consider it eye-opening. Even though we are used to thinking that Shakespeare is the same for everyone and everywhere, in reality, it is not as simple. Different countries that have differing views, traditions, and experiences adapt Shakespeare’s stories in their own unique way. Thus, the image of Shakespeare is quite individual for everyone. This passage gave me the idea that Shakespeare can be someone else in different countries or throughout different ages.

This idea helps us understand that the new adaptations are not only copies, but are shaped by the cultural and historical themes of the countries. Previously, in the text, some Shakespearean appropriations that were were studied. The author stated that in America, Shakespeare’s image is different in urban and rural areas. In Mexico, Shakespeare’s works can be used as a “radical antidote against centralized attempts to impose North American and European values on local institutions.” (pg 6). Even in Britain, local traditions and global tensions often conflict. The information provided by the passage helped us analyse how the audience differently reflects on Shakespeare and how his art can be influenced worldwide, which is fascinating. An open-ended question I came up with is “How do the adaptations use local problems, traditions, and historical events to make Shakespeare’s characters more relatable to themselves?”

Reference: Massai, S. (n.d). Defining Local Shakespeares.

Massai, S. (n.d.). Defining local Shakespeares. In S. Massai (Ed.), World-wide Shakespeares.

I chose this because it moves away from seeing Shakespeare as a fixed text or universal symbol. It instead allows us to see each adaptation as an active force shaping what Shakespeare is in different contexts.

Thinking of Shakespeare as a cultural field helps us recognize that every performance, whether in London or Yerevan is not just “borrowing” Shakespeare but actively reimagining him. This means local productions aren’t secondary or derivative but are participants in shaping the global meaning of Shakespeare. For example, when an Armenian production emphasizes themes of survival or memory, it adds to Shakespeare’s field in ways that an English staging might not. This approach guides us to ask how context, politics, and audience expectations expand the definition of Shakespeare.

A guiding question: How does a local adaptation position itself within the broader “field” of Shakespeare, and what new meanings or perspectives does it create for both local and global audiences?

Reference: Massai, S. (n.d.). Defining local Shakespeares. In S. Messai (Ed.), World-wide Shakespeare

changes in the position-takings of the occupants of the other positions." (pp. 4-5).

I selected this paragraph because it highlights Massai's main claim that local Shakespeare adaptations actively change what "Shakespeare" means globally, rather than merely existing at the borders of a fixed cultural structure(aka locally). I selected this because it questions the traditional view on adaptations and instead portrays them as innovative forces that completely reshape the world of culture.

This idea really changes how I think about "local" Shakespeare productions. Instead of seeing them as merely adapting Shakespeare's plays to fit their own culture, these adaptations actually alter what Shakespeare means for everyone. When a theater company in another country or a marginalized community stages Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet, they're not just translating it; they're adding something new that makes us see the original plays in a different light. This means we shouldn't judge these productions based on how "true" they are to Shakespeare's original vision. Instead, we should examine the fresh insights they bring and how they expand our understanding of what these classic plays can be about.

Question.

How does this local adaptation reshape our understanding of Shakespeare's original text, and what new meanings does it make visible that weren't apparent/noticed before the new cultural intervention?

I really liked this claim. I believe it raises an important question for both the readers and writers - is it a good idea to even rewrite Shakespeare? As a reader who has read the works of Shakespeare and other authors that rewrite and mimic it - does it carry the same weight as the original?

When people analyze adaptations I believe it's important to keep in mind who wrote thee adaptation and with what intention. How closely does it follows the original. Does it even have to follow the original word by word? It's hard to answer the question because I believe its person to person and rather depends on the understanding of the authors intention. In translation it is also really tricky because every word choice is important. As a person doing the adaptation it is also a very responsible job and if we start looking at the adaptations from the side of the person who did it - it will help deepen our understanding as both readers and possibly writers.

"How much the intentions and themes of Shakespeare gets lost in translation and adaptations? How modern adaptations make the story relate the story to new generation in different medium (movie, show)?

I selected this idea since it highlights how our perception of Shakespeare's adaptations is shaped based on the debate of post-colonial and global-local studies. The framing or terms can have a strong influence on our interpretation and analysis of the adaptations being it the reinforcement of Shakespeare's authority or the empowerment of the new voices through them.

This idea can help us analyze both local or culturally specific adaptations by encouraging us to question the primary motivations and effects of each production. Do these performances simply reinforce Shakespeare's status as a culture figure, or do they use his works as a platform to raise new voices. This framework aids us to take into account the intention behind the adaptation and the impact it has on distinct audiences, enabling us to comprehend the importance of Shakespeare viewed by different cultural lens.

To what degree does a certain adaptation reinforce Shakespeare’s cultural authority, or instead provide a space for new voices to challenge and reshape his authority?

Massai, S. (2007). World-Wide Shakespeares. In Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203356944

"It is essentially standardization that effaces the difference between the center and the margins. And although it may be an exaggeration to claim that we are all marginals now, all decentered in the current good senses of those words, certainly many new freedoms have been won in the process whereby globalization has meant a decentering and a proliferation of differences."

One of the main reasons I've picked this passage is the contrast between globalization (which can lead to standardization) and how it also creates local diversity. It highlighted the power dynamics, which is important to the way we think of Shakespeare as a global figure.

This idea helps us to see Shakespeare not as one uniform thing (not "Standardization"), but can be changed and appropriated into different cultures. For example, Shakespeare's performance in Armenia may not be the same as a performance in Greece. By focusing on this, we can more clearly analyze what the performers and directors meant ot convey through Shakespeare. It can remind us to see not only what was borrowed from the original, but what local influences transformed it.

As for the open-ended question. How about:

"How does this adaptation negotiate between globalized, “standardized” Shakespeare and the distinct cultural or historical identity of its local context?"

I chose this quote because I recognized myself in this sentence. The way I thought about preserving the “initial Shakespearean way of performances” came exactly from the part of my logic which I was unaware of before. One of my answers from the previous Padlet activity shows how I thought that Shakespeare’s so-called original thought might be lost in the bunch of recreations and culturally affected changes. 

The idea I selected can become an eye-opening concept for people who think of the adaptations of the Shakespeare plays, as something not relevant and too far away from the “real one.” By analyzing the adaptation of plays in the Armenian context through this awakening idea, people might come to the conclusion that they had predispositions controlling their thought-forming process and leading to denial of something new or something closer to their culture. Sometimes audiences are not willing to accept the modernized versions of the plays, as they simply don’t want to feel cultural connection to them (as it seems irrelevant), they want to be in “the third person mode” and only observe and maybe later judge the performance. By familiarising themselves to the idea of being a victim of their own logical influences, the audiences will be ready to let in the new versions of the plays.

Question

How the logical influences of thought models formed in people’s minds can be pondered upon to affect the audiences reactions to the new adaptations of the Shakespeare plays?

Massai, S. (2007). Defining local Shakespeares. In S. Messai (Ed.), World-wide Shakespeare.

I chose this specific thought because it kind of reframes the common assumption that Shakespeare is inherently universal. Instead, it highlights how Shakespeare’s significance is always changed through local cultural, historical, and social contexts. Basically, this challenges us to see each adaptation not as a mere reflection of Shakespeare, but as an active cultural negotiation that produces new meanings specific to its locality.

This idea can actually help our study of local Shakespeare adaptations by reminding us to consider how a production/play can reflect the values, history, and even social life/structures of its particular community. For example, a Mexican production of The Merchant of Venice may use the play to critique cultural imperialism, while a post-Cultural Revolution Chinese adaptation might put the highlight on the individual freedom and social critique. So by focusing on how local contexts shape adaptations, we can better understand the connection between Shakespeare’s text and the distinct cultural “field” in which it is performed. This approach also allows us to see the global Shakespearean phenomenon as a network of local meanings rather than a single universal standard.

Question- How does this version of Shakespeare show the culture it comes from, and what does that say about whether Shakespeare is really “universal” or not?

I chose this idea because it emphasizes Shakespeare not as a static text but as a cultural space where different voices, traditions, and power relations intersect. And adaptations are literally made from fluidity of the context. Thinking of Shakespeare as a “field of forces” helps us see local adaptations as active participants in ongoing cultural debates rather than as isolated reinterpretations. Each production makes a choice about what forces to align with or push against, be they national identity, postcolonial resistance, or commercial entertainment. For example, a modern community staging of Othello might both draw on global conversations about race and articulate locally specific struggles with identity and belonging, and as I mentioned before in Armenian theatres performing in Tblisi in the early 1900s, actress Siranoush was the first woman to pull out the cross-dressing by playing Othello in the history of Armenian Theatre. Armenian famous poet Yeghishe Charents was so mesmerized with her play that he wrote that it seemed that Shakespeare wouldn't mind if he knew. And my thought provoking question would be:

How does this adaptation participate in Shakespeare’s “field of forces,” and what cultural, political struggles does it reveal in its context or in the adaptations of other nations?

I liked this idea in particular, because it presents Shakespeare not as part of a culture, but as culture itself. His works are so widespread that his plays have integrated into other people's culture. He is seen as a cultural field that is prone to change and adaptations. This argument recognizes appropriation as a casual phenomenon that each culture lives in, removing the colonial aspect and focusing on the shared love for Shakespeare that has brought many cultures together, shaping an important aspect in their lives.

This idea helps us see local adaptations not as "lesser" works, but performances worth attention and praise for nicely integrating the plays into their culture. It allows local performances to be appreciated for their uniqueness, whether it's through their own colors, dialect, attire, and more. These works are not "secondary" to the original ones, but rather a new definition. For instance, a local culture adapting "Romeo and Juliet" may add their cultural touch to it, giving it a new meaning valuable for the community that resonates with them well. This approach allows us to see adaptations not as some "cheap copy", but rather a new art piece inspired by Shakespeare, which integrates better into his essence as a writer who was able to touch upon universal themes.

Question: "How does this adaptation introduce new cultural meanings or challenges that reshape Shakespeare’s work for its audience?"

Reference

Massai, S. (n.d). Defining Local Shakespeares.

I chose this idea because very often on the Internet I see adaptations of different famous works of art, which to me sometimes seem so modified that they’re more of an original work than an adaptation. But when do we draw the line? If Shakespeare is more of “the sum of the critical and creative responses elicited by his work,” does that give me absolute freedom in my way of adapting the play (Massai, p. 6)?

We can connect this idea with our study of local and global Shakespeare by analyzing what is essential to the play and what is not to be changed. For example, as a director claiming to be adapting Shakespeare, what aspects of the play are completely fine for me to change, and what aspects are not ethical to change (again, IF I am claiming to be staging Shakespeare).

Hence my question for our class:

How much can the local adapter of Shakespeare (be it a theatre director, filmmaker, the actors…) change and modify the work for it to be considered Shakespeare, and where do we draw the line of ‘Shakespeare’ and ‘not Shakespeare anymore’?

References

Maasai, S. (2007). Defining Local Shakespeares. In Rootledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203356944

I chose this idea because it shows Shakespeare is never fixed or final, each adaptation or performance actively reshapes what “Shakespeare” means. It shows that way his works are always actual and change the nature of his works across contexts. (page 6)

2. This idea helps us see local productions not as “lesser” versions but as active participants in the cultural field of Shakespeare. Each local adaptation brings new meanings by competing with and adding to existing definitions. For example, an Armenian production might highlight themes of survival, history, or resistance, offering a definition of Shakespeare that differs from an English or American one. By doing so, the adaptation doesn’t just stage Shakespeare, it redefines him in relation to local culture and global expectations.

3. Guiding Question

How does this adaptation show Shakespeare as a flexible cultural field rather than a single, fixed text?

I chose this idea because it seemed a little bit problematic to me and raised quite a lot of questions. Everyone in academia (especially those following the postmodern way of thinking and basing their arguments on this tradition), while rejecting binaries, seems to have agreed on binaries like centre-periphery, dominant-subaltern. However, this distinction itself seems quite vague and problematic for me, and the agreement about this distinction seems even more problematic. I would like to be clear on the definitions of these terms before entering into further discussion (in the paper, it mentions terms like dominant Shakespearean interpretations, etc.)

This seems especially relevant in Armenian culture, where representation consumed by the international audience is seen as a feat, while omission feels inevitable, a fate of a small country. My feeling is that the centre-periphery discourse reinforces this view, making Armenian art appear as a struggle against the 'dominant' and a pursuit for recognition (the never-ending repetition that Armenia is a cradle, center of civilization is yet another expression of that struggle). So, exoticizing and stressing the stereotypical local becomes more important than simply creating art without considering its cultural representation. In the end, isn't everything created by an Armenian a representation of the Armenian culture in its own peculiar way?

So, my question would be how can the discourse about marginal and dominant, center and periphery be a liberating force, rather than a definition of a worthy goal to be fought by a “periphery” or “marginal” culture, as many within and beyond the given culture consider it to be?

Coming back to my first quote, it kind of struck me - managing to capture the thoughts I, myself, could not put into words for a long time. Sure, he is one of the classics, but it's almost as if he is everywhere...Shakespeare sells, and late stage capitalism has cracked the code. Besides, the topic of Westernization is almost always relevant. By adapting Shakespeare, an English author, are we under affect of globalization? Are we able to carry a new meaning, relevant to our culture, through his works or do we just comply to Western norms?

With these questions in mind, we could analyze how local adaptations manage through representing their own culture and cultural identity through Shakespeare, and how does it resonate with the community. At the same time, we can examine whether elements of the performance still reinforce Western traditions by treating Shakespeare as an unquestioned authority. So, my question remains the same - "Are we able to carry a new meaning, relevant to our culture, through his works or do we just comply to Western norms?"