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

[Darlin]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Wendigo_49]

Unabridged if given a choice.

[mono]

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]

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]

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]

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

[subterranean]

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

[Darlin]

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

:D 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]

Say, have you read War and Peace?

[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.

[Darlin]

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]

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.

[pickupyourbrain]

ah... that is a valid point. However, I think plenty of good books have been and continue to be written for all age groups. Harder books simply pose a challenge to be overcome or worked up to in good time. Accepting that challenge also encourages further research and critical thinking skills.That said, though, abridged versions are perfectly adequate resources for increasing overall understanding of a work, they just shouldn't replace the original.

[Darlin]

Definitely agree with you there!

[subterranean]

Well the size of that book hesitates me ;)


Maybe abridged books are useful to those who doesn't really like to read (alot), but need to read the book say, to write a paper/review.


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?

[mono]

Say, have you read War and Peace?
Tolstoy's War and Peace definitely proved as a difficult read - far more difficult than Anna Karenina, and perhaps the most challenging read I have encountered.
Despite its roughly 1,500 pages, I managed to read it in good time last summer, while on vacation, and every page I felt worth reading, filled with some of the most profound literary art. Most longer books, I have noticed, and those most common in abridged versions, like Tolstoy's War and Peace and Anna Karenina, Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, and George Eliot's Middlemarch, I usually find the most worth reading at length. ;)

[B-Mental]

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

AAAAGGGHHH! I think of books as living entities of an artists creation. I don't think any should be tossed. It may have ended its usefulness for you, but it still can be read by others. Pass em on please

[geetanjali]

I like to read a synopsis or an abridged version before plunging into a lengthy content. In fact, it hepls you read the original in a well prepared manner. My formula is time tested - I've tried with Henry Fielding's Tom Jones. Its a really big big novel in the same lines of Don Quixote by Cervantes. Its Panoramic.

[cruciverbalist]

I definitely prefer unabridged versions. Whenever I tried reading an abridged version of a book, even as a kid, I could never get through the entire book(short as it was) since the writing was abysmal. The only exception has been an abridged version of Les Miserables that I once picked up in our (very under-stocked) school library that I found pretty interesting.
It really depends a lot on the quality of the version, and also probably the age of the reader!

[sassypengeduin]

I just bought the scholastic abridged version of the jungle book. Before i invest myself in it do you think it a worthy adaptation from Kiplings original version?

[Geoffrey]

The only book that I have ever preffered reading the abriged edition of was Darwin's book on evolution. Other wise though, unabriged should be the standard. Who wants half a book anyways.

[Marceki111]

I prefer unabridged, retail CD editions of audiobooks. Moreover, most audios I have in my iTunes are unabridged. I can't stand abridged versions. I purchased the Unabridged, Retail CD Edition of "The Art of Detection" by Laurie R. King narrated by Alyssa Bresnahan and Robert Ian MacKenzee from Recorded Books. (13.75 hours, 12 CDs) (*laughs* you won't find me listening to a 1- or 2-cassette abridgement from now on, hehehehehehehe)
Right now I'm finishing up "The Chamber" by John Grisham read by Micheal Beck, which I downloaded from Audible more than a month ago. :-)
So far, so good. Mr. Beck's narration is superb.

[BadassBookworm]

I once heard a quote that "Cliff's Notes and the like are second rate summaries and analysis for third rate minds". I can attest to the accuracy of that statement by the first time I read The Brothers Karamazov. It was about two years ago and I made it about half was through before losing interest. I thought I knew what was going on until I picked it up again a few weeks ago and decided to give it another shot and start fresh. Boy was I wrong! I totally missed the point the first time through. I attribute this to my heavy reliance on Spark Notes to tell me what was happening instead of concentrating and thinking deeper.

As for abridged versions...ever since I read The Count of Monte Cristo, I keep a close eye on what I read to make sure they ARE NOT abridged. I'll never forget my disappointment of making it more than half way through the book and realizing I'm reading the words "abridged" while taking a close look at the inside jacket. What tipped me off was when the book introduced the name Sinbad The Sailor without any proper introduction or tie-in.

Cliff's Notes and Abridged: the two worst things in literature.

[chasestalling]

don't know about cliff's notes (i suspect they're like sugar coated medicine) but to read an abridged version of a book is to be condescended to in the worst way. what a disservice to good writers and good readers alike, this pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[aabbcc]

The school I attend (final year now :D) has got very demanding reading lists for Literature class. What we study is basically chronological history of literature (European, predominately, of course with focus on national), with a couple of exceptions which are not put in the curriculum according to their chronological place, but according to some other criterion.

So, when you have got a bunch of 14- (or 16-, 18-... :D) age students in a class which requires them to read about two dozens of books per academic year, and when those books are works such as Odyssey or Anna Karenina or Father Goriot, it is quite obvious - perhaps even too obvious - that not a lot of students will actually read them all. They will gain some basic insight into those works by their presence in the class when they are discussed, thus hear where are they put in the context of European/world literature, and they generally will be able to tell you a few curious information about those works or their authors, but you can consider yourself lucky if at average your students actually read roughly a half of those readings a year.

There are students who simply do not care, do the basic minimum for the class and even openly admit that they do not read the vast majority of those books. In some cases those are even very smart students, but with different interests, so they have somewhat negative approach towards the system ("I intend to major in Mathematics and Physics in university. Why would I need to read so many books, in order to fulfill somebody's elitist concept of cultura generale, instead of focusing on my interests and on that out of which I plan to make career? Get off my desk that copy of Eugene Grandet and let me focus on quantum physics!" - you have to admit that they actually have a bit of a point here... ); there are also those who even might be interested in it, and who do plan to pursue the studies of humanities in university, but are too lazy to go through thousands of pages every year, when there is an "easier solution", so they read some of the readings which they find intriguining and use "easier solution" for the rest; and there are, of course, certain students whose aim is not to have high grades, but to simply pass the year, and who mostly simply do not care enough to appear at school regularly, let alone actually read what they are supposed to.

So, the "easier solution" - to finally hit the point - is precisely what you talk about. Abridged versions. Sparknotes. Cliff's Notes. "A Guide to ". Critics' comments. Various other second-hand sources which speak [i]of the work itself and present it the way somebody else saw it, but are not the work itself.
So, what those children are doing is a harm much greater than simple not having read what is on your curriculum - they are lowering themselves to a level where they absorb other people's ideas and views as their own. They are depriving themselves of the chance to see and find something in those works, for if they read them after , that is bound to affect the eyes with which they read and the perspective they gain; for, it is one thing to have read critics after you have read the work and formed your own picture of it, and completely other thing to read them before and to allow somebody else dictate how are you going to see the work.

Aside uninterested students who spend more time in caffe near school than in the school itself. Even put aside those interested in things such as sciences, who wish to do the bare minumum to have decent B in the class and try to get away with most they can. Those two groups of students simply have different priorities in life, and we need to respect that - the only thing they differ in is that the latter are likely to do some compromise in order to function within the system, whilst the former usually try to find their way in life out of academia and the system. It is the third group that really makes me pissed - those interested, but lazy. The would-be intellectuals, who get the privilege of being schooled in such an awesome school, and then whine about having to read two books a month. The ones who want to be "educated", but do not do the least thing to bring themselves to their goal. Who believe it is enough to study history of literature, and regularly appearing in classes to hear interpretations and discussion of literary works. Even worse, who do [i]not believe it is enough, but still insist in it, in cheating on, basically, themselves.
'cause, you know, those kids will study humanities at university. They will study things such as languages, philosophy, theology, whatnot. Some of them will probably even major in Literature. And I have seen a lot of times what those people usually do (it should be noted, however, that there still are exceptions, who "wake up" during their university time, realise that they are cheating themselves basically and start reading and thinking with their own mind) - they "copy" the system of getting away with it in lycée, in more sophisticated form, to university. Hell, I know a guy who majored in germanistics and he brags about not having read the total of ten books in German in his life! And I would not say anything if he was an exception, a weird case that somehow managed to happen, but he is not. It happens. Such kids finish universities. They become (generally lousy) professors. Some of them, ironically, happen to become critics of second-hand popular literature for equally second-hand magazines. They remain at the edges of fields, which usually ends up in teaching, and thus doing harm to more children with their lack of education in their own fields.
It is one thing to study for an exam in university off somebody's notes and critics' works and having read roughly 1/4 of what is supposed to be read, it is another thing to read 50-ish books demanded and think about it, form your own perspective. Go figure which one is easier.

So, such resorts are quite popular. I can understand that somebody does it once (or twice, or three times) in their schooling - fine, it happened, they did not have time or really had no desire to read certain work, so they got away with it. Fine. As somebody once told me - really, you are not going to miss much of a context if you skip one work. Or two. Or three. In the total 4-years-long curriculum.
But, if one does it even semi-regularly, one misses the entire context and everything which goes with it - of specific work, of epoch, of literature in general. And fine if somebody consciously decides they aren't interested in it - lesser harm, as it doesn't include other people too. They will be great mathematicians, economists, doctors, you name it. Not only they will not make literature their life, but it will maybe not even be their hobby - and that is their right.
But the other group, those who plan do to something with it, and who fail to realise their responsibility (as future professors, for example) as other people are going to be involved... they are the ones to really piss me off at times when I think about it, though I usually could not care less what other people read or do not read.

(Sorry about this half-off-topic rant. Yesterday I had similar discussion with a friend and I realised how many of such people we know, even amongst our own professors, and pseudo-intellectuals at his university, so the whole thing is still too fresh for me :(
To actually respond the question - I do not use those. At times I read some reviews or critics, but always after the original work.)

[Nossa]

I did use Spark Notes, York Notes and Cliff Notes at times. I mainly go through them quickly, and always after finishing the original work.
I remember in my first year in university, we were studying Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare then was the most boring subject of the whole semester to tell you the truth. I used Spark Notes mainly while I studied it, and as I wasn't really aware of what's good and what's not, I got a C in Drama that year, cuz I didn't concentrate on the play itself. This year, I got an A+ and I didn't even bother to look at anything other than the two plays I was studying and my lectures notebook.
Bottom line is, they're not 'bad', it depends on HOW you use them. They give you hints, little bits and pieces about the work, in case you, for instance, want to know about the work before you study/read it. In this, they're okay, sometimes even good.
But using them and thier material instead of the original works is the worst mistake ever, I can tell you that.

[Mockingbird_z]

Hi, I was wondering if you ever read abridged versions of books, and if so then when?
say if you had to read a book in a very short time or many books would you read their abridged versions?

[slobone]

For fiction, I can't see the point. I read for pleasure, and I'm not in a hurry. I'd rather read the book the way the author intended.

But I do sometimes long for an abridged version when I'm reading a long, detailed non-fiction book, like a biography. I find myself thinking, "You know, I really don't need to know what this person did on every day of their life."

[Virgil]

No, it always feels like I'm missing something. Plus this is not what the author intended, unless of course the author provides the abridged version himself. The only abridged version that I would recommend is Richardson's Clarissa, because the orignal is just rediculously long.

[EricP]

I have a few abridged books in my library, but they are mostly nonfiction like Alexis de Tocquesville's "Democracy In America" and Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". I think that the only abridged novel I've ever read was "Clarissa" by Samuel Richardson...and the short version was still much longer than it needed to be!

[amalia1985]

No, never. I don't even encourage my young students to choose them.

[downing]

Only when I cannot find the unabridged version.

[johann cruyff]

No,I'd never read the abridged version,even at the cost of not reading the book at all,actually.As Virgil pointed out,I'd always feel as if I was missing out on something.

[Erichtho]

Only if it is non-fiction or a book you don't read from beginning to the end in a row; e.g. I own a book with a selection of Montaigne's Essais and I would also buy poetry selections. I don't need to read every poem by R.M. Rilke - besides his masterpieces there are also some trashy poems I can easily do without.

[bej6s]

I got an abridged version of a classic out of the library once by mistake and the first page was disappointing. The abridged version doesn't make much sense to me; honestly, if a part of a book starts to bore me, I'll go into skim mode. However, I like making the decision myself which sections of the text are worth reading and which are better to skim.

[JBI]

I refuse to read abridgments unless an unabridged doesn't exist in English translation. Reading a 600 page Count of Monte Cristo doesn't count as reading. I guess that is why the book is so popular; most people don't actually read it, and even those that do only read some editor's opinion of it.


As for the poster who uses audiobooks, I cannot even understand how you can get even close to the same experience with an audio copy as you can with the text.

[Aiculík]

I used to read abriged versions when I was begining to learn English - obviously "elementary" level is not enough to read an unabriged novel. But that never felt right, I wasn't able to enjoy it - first, the style was almost idiotic, second, I kept thinking after each sentence how can it sound in real and what parts were omitted. So I chose only those stories I knew from the translation and read it only as "study material', not as "literature". And as soon as I was at "pre-intermediate" level, I started to read unabriged novels, even though I had to each book 2 - 3 times to get what it is about. And I think it helped me more useful for learning English than abriged versions.

As for Spark Notes, I think they can be useful, but it depends how you use it. If you read it instead of the book, then I think it's very stupid thing to do. But if you do it to confront your opinions about the book with the opinion of someone else, it can be useful, it can point out some things you never thought of, or show it from different perspective. In most cases I disagree with what's written there, but occasionally I find also something ineresting.

[Tournesol]

If you're starving hungry, would you only eat crumbs, when you can have the whole meal??

If you're dying of thirst, would you only take a sip, if you can have the whole bottle??

[johnsccc]

unabridged. Don quixote is one of the best books i've ever read and Ilm constantly recommending it to anyone and everyone. I read the abridged version when i was younger and still enjoyed it but with the whole book the depth of the story expands to quite a different level


'Ever since I came down from the heavens and ever since I looked down from the top of them at the Earth and saw it was so small, that great urge I had to be a governor has been cooling off a bit- what's so marvellous about ruling over a mustard seed, and what's so lordly or important about governing half a dozen men the size of hazelnuts? because it seemed to me there weren't any more than that on the whole Earth. If your lordship could see your way to giving me a little bit of heaven, even if only a couple of miles or so of it, i'd be happier with that than with the biggest island in the world.'
sancho panza (from don quixote)

[bej6s]

As for the poster who uses audiobooks, I cannot even understand how you can get even close to the same experience with an audio copy as you can with the text.

I know this is slightly off-topic, but I completely agree on this point. I tried listening to audio books when I was driving, since I used to have a very long commute to work, but I zone out and miss entire sections of the book. It's very hard to actively listen. Otherwise, the voice just ends up like a hum, going in one ear and out the other.

[jaywalker]

Abridged ? Pistols at Dawn,mate.

[LadyWentworth]

Oh, I would never intentionally read an abridged version.

I read one a long time ago. I absolutely cannot remember what it was anymore, but I bought the abridged version without realizing it. Then, halfway through the story I realized that I bought the wrong version. That bothered me a lot because I felt that I may have missed out on something. So I try to make sure that I only buy the unabridged versions of novels.

[wessexgirl]

I agree on a personal level about going for the unabridged versions of books. But I am an adult, and I think that some abridged classics can be a great starter for children, who can get a taste of the book, and carry on and read the full version if they liked it.

As for audio books, I think they are another great way of getting great literature across. I listen to them a lot, as when you work full-time, you don't have the leisure to sit and read. I can be catching up on my "reading", while catching up on my chores. In fact, I've just finished The Mayor of Casterbridge (again), and it doesn't preclude you from reading the novel too, which I have done. I would say listen to the unabridged versions though.
I am a school librarian, and I have started to buy more audio books, as not only do they get the children into the books, but we also have some visually impaired students. Why should they be denied great books?

Basically, I love reading, first and foremost, but there is a place for audio versions, for those who cannot physically read, and those of us who are so busy, they can keep up with their fix of books while doing the mundane stuff of everyday life.

[bounty]

im sure abridged versions have a meaningful place in the wide world of reading, but i know i dont like it when we sing the first, second and fourth stanzas of hymns!