Was thinking of reading both Les Mis and Count of Monte Cristo soon.
Most versions of both are abridged. To those who have read them, how much of a difference does this make? Which versions would you recommend?
Was thinking of reading both Les Mis and Count of Monte Cristo soon.
Most versions of both are abridged. To those who have read them, how much of a difference does this make? Which versions would you recommend?
The difference is in the limiting/truncating of a work of art.
J'ai seul la clef de cette parade sauvage.
- Rimbaud
Imagine someone decided to take out everything but the refrain of classic songs such as Stairway to Heaven.
I try not to read abridged anythings. Not only is stuff taken out, a lot of the time strange things are changed. Important things. I like "The Gunslinger," for example. Many subtle drug references were removed in the rereleases. I don't know why or by whom.
I suggest reading the abridged and unabridged versions and letting litnet know what the glaring differences are. Ya know, for fun for me?
Sometimes it is necessary and useful to abridge literary works: for television/movies, audio books, exposing children to literature early, for language learners, etc. Many translations are abridgements. When I was a young lad, I read 'The Count of Monte Cristo', and though it created a desire in me to read the original later, it rather misrepresented the original work. But that was one abriged version.
I'd recommend you read the originals. You can skim read the boring bits and even stop reading the works altogether if you must. At least you would be stopping or skipping bits based on the original content. Although if it's a translation anyway, it's sometimes hard to know whether you dislike the writer or the translation.
Last edited by Silas Thorne; 12-16-2010 at 09:50 PM.
I would not recommend abridged lit. I just finished the full Count of Monte Cristo and I can't see a wasted word anywhere.
If you're concerned about time, just read the full versions but read twice as much per day.
The Count of Monte Cristo is to many ....
the greatest adventure novel ever written. I have read the unabridged Dumas work three times. There are no dull spots; I couldn't recommend reading an abridged copy of this book.
I have also read Les Miserables in a four volume unabridged version. However, this long novel has much about French history and a long description of the Battle of Waterloo. To the reader of this book, I would recommend geting an unabridged work so that you have the complete novel before you; then you can skip those parts which are not germain to the basic novel. But if you are interested, you can read those parts.
This is like skipping the roster of ships in the Iliad. These were of interest by the Acheans, but not so much by the modern reader, so this long chapter can be skipped without limiting the basic story.
Another example is the section on the types of cetacians in Moby Dick. I skipped this section the first time through Moby, then read it later on.
I would think an abridged version of Les Miserables should be serviceable for anyone not really studying it. I quite enjoyed an abridged version I read years ago, though I recall, it was still over 1000 pages. From what I understand, most of the material omitted is very localized political material, which the average reader wouldn't get much out of anyway.
Ecce quam bonum et jocundum, habitares libros in unum!
~Robert Greene, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay
From what I've heard, there are parts in the unabridged versionof les miserables where it pads and has nothing to do with the story.
Best to read the original or annotated versions to get the gist of what is going on the work... Abridged takes the magic out of the work completely, if not, severely.
"We look at the world, at governments, across the spectrum, some with more freedom, some with less. And we observe that the more repressive the State is, the closer life under it resembles Death. If dying is deliverance into a condition of total non-freedom, then the State tends, in the limit, to Death. The only way to address the problem of the State is with counter-Death, also known as Chemistry." -- Thomas Pynchon, Against the Day
I agree with dfloyd.
There isn't much you'd want to skip in the Count of Monte Cristo.
Les Mis, on the other hand, contains many diversions that are not directly relevant to the basic plot - e.g., the lengthy discussion of Waterloo, a lengthy description of the sewers of Paris, the language of poor children in Paris, etc.
I'm happy to have gone through the unabridged version of Les Mis, and have a strict unabridged policy for myself, but wouldn't hold it against anyone if they chose not to.
The Count of Monte Cristo does not contain these diversions, so I would recommend reading the unabridged version.
Finally, just think of it as a longer book. Aside from the diversions described in Les Mis, most of the time, unabridged books just contain a whole lot more of the good stuff that made you want to read it in the first place.
FixedOriginally Posted by Ghuyuran
Latest Blog: An Impassioned and Immediate Response to Dan Hodges, Political Writer, Daily Telegraph.
http://britishpharaoh.wordpress.com/
I have to agree with MOnte Cristo. Why anyone would actually like to abridge that, is an enigma to me. No dull spots, no seeming useless diversions, only good, hard, gripping story, though it does take the largest part of the book to get to the main part which everyone knows. You really need all the details in it though to really understand the plot and the reasons for certain things happening. Very intricate and very cunning too.
Les Misérables is a matter of opinion... All the parts do have their meaning and the whole work is not actually a story per se, but rather a true account in a general way about French society between the French Revolution and 1830/1. That is why SPOILER! everything culminates on the barricade and why all characters meet there some way or other SPOILER OVER. However, if you rather don't want to go through the lengthy Hugo-diversions then by all means you can read an abridged version, but actually I would doubt that the true generising nature of the work is considered.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
