Do you ever read abridged versions???????

**Darlin** · 10-02-2005, 06:42 AM

Okay, I picked up my Don Quixote ready to give it a go this year and saw it was the abridged version. I was shocked and apalled, even outraged because I had this book for years, got it through a book club. So I had to go out and buy the real deal. Of course now that I have the real deal and it's a whole lot heftier I don't know when I'm going to read it but that's another matter.

Does anyone else feel this way? Abridged or unabridged?

**volvoreta** · 10-02-2005, 07:18 AM

Unabridge.
My parents gave me an abridged version as a birthday present when I was 10 and I hated it. Later on, I read the unabridged version and I thoroughly recommend it. Make time for it.

**Pensive** · 10-02-2005, 07:47 AM

I prefer Unabridged version but sometimes it depends on the story and the writer's style. For a 10 years old, abridged version of The Return of the Natve will be better.I think I will always prefer Unabridged version to read but once when I was 10 I read unabridged version and I did not understand it and hated it and my uncle bought me the abridged version which I loved....but now I read abridged version of Mayor of the Casterbridge and I hated it...when I tired the unabridged version....It looked quite good to me. It really depends on age and thje writing style in the version. As I like Eliot's style more than her story's plot, I will never like the abridged version...

**PeterL** · 10-02-2005, 10:43 AM

Given the choice, I wouldn't even consider reading an abridged version of anything, but abridgements aren't all that bad.

**Wendigo_49** · 10-02-2005, 11:59 AM

Unabridged if given a choice.

**mono** · 10-02-2005, 12:37 PM

As with anyone, I would choose an unabridged version, but if I could only find an abridged version, then I would read it.
As a relatively long book, in high school, I remember reading the abridged version of J.R.R. Tolkein's The Hobbit, and then, that summer, reading the unabridged version. Of course, the plot did not change, or I saw no major changes, but in the unabridged, Tolkein's style shined through a lot more, and seemed more personal.
With reading something from a foreign language, like Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote, the style also greatly depends on the translator, but, no doubt, the unabridged will far outshine the abridged.
Good luck, Darlin!

**Darlin** · 10-02-2005, 08:44 PM

Thank you mono. Here I am thinking maybe I'm an oddball not just liking unabridged books but apalled with anything else. I appreciate everyone's feedback. Some very good points and I guess age does make a bit of a difference.

**B-Mental** · 10-02-2005, 08:53 PM

I would tend to say unabridged books are my preference, but I have one exception to the rule, Victor Hugo's Unabridged Les Miserables. It contained several detailed chapters which are interesting in a historical aspect, but have little relevance to the story. The one I found most annoying was a chapter long description of a convent and the Nuns form of worship, which was overlong and made me contemplate even finishing the story.

**PeterL** · 10-02-2005, 11:07 PM

Abridged books are the only ones that have no qualms about tossing in the trash.

**subterranean** · 10-03-2005, 04:21 AM

For me, reading abriged version would be like reading those traslated versions

**Darlin** · 10-04-2005, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by PeterL

Abridged books are the only ones that have no qualms about tossing in the trash.

Good point in some cases but maybe the unabridged books are like extended editions of DVD's, some good additions enhance the story while some additions are completely unnecessary but it's nice to see anyway.

**subterranean** · 10-04-2005, 07:42 PM

Say, have you read War and Peace?

**pickupyourbrain** · 10-05-2005, 03:13 PM

I've never read an abridged version of anything and avoid them like the plauge. Maybe it's just a silly preference, but I've always kind of thought that reading the abridged version isn't really reading the book. It's almost like reading someone elses notes of the book. I also think that a lot the original language and meaning can be lost in them, especially for older classics. War and Peace without Tolstoy's poignant detail and analysis of human nature? It's a tragedy, and does a great disservice to the author and slight insult to the intelligence of readers.

**Darlin** · 10-05-2005, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by subterranean

Say, have you read War and Peace?

Nope, not yet. I have the thick volume sitting in my bookcase and it's been begging me to read it for years. I will one day, maybe even in 2006 - will have to see. Have you?

**Darlin** · 10-05-2005, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by pickupyourbrain

I've never read an abridged version of anything and avoid them like the plauge. Maybe it's just a silly preference, but I've always kind of thought that reading the abridged version isn't really reading the book. It's almost like reading someone elses notes of the book. I also think that a lot the original language and meaning can be lost in them, especially for older classics. War and Peace without Tolstoy's poignant detail and analysis of human nature? It's a tragedy, and does a great disservice to the author and slight insult to the intelligence of readers.

Well, I'm of the same opinion here especially the last line, pickupyourbrain. Abridged just rankles with me but as Pensive noted an abridged book for children isn't so bad when you think about it and I think depending upon the age range. If it introduces them to good books I suppose it can be a good thing.