Abridgement: drawing the line?

[mal4mac]

Do you ever give up with original works and make do with an abridgement? Or just give up on them completely? Personally, I would not read an abridgement of a "Complete Shakespeare" (someone just suggested I am the type who would -- just thought I'd put that straight, Shakespeare is God in my books...) I would (have!) read a severe abridgement of the Bible* - it's the only way I can get through it.

* The 100 Minute Bible

[kiki1982]

But, who reads the Bible when it is not relevant? I mean, when one does not need to read the Book of Esther because there is some reference in another work one wants to understands, why does one want to read it? It's so big that you can never remember what's in it anyway, because it has no real plot. The Gospel, which is one of the biggest books about one thing, is still not in a logical order that tells story. The Wedding of Canaa comes somewhere at the start, but before or after the parable of the mustardseed? Does one really want to read all the rants of Isiah? The book of Kings or Leviticus? Unless referenced somewhere? The Bible is not a book, but a cllection of things believed to be important. Why not read them as one goes along?

I personally am not at all interested in classical works. So I'll probably never commit to Homer's Iliad or Odissey, but if I were I would certainly not want an abridgment. Abridgùents put me off. One does not have the same impression as with the original. This thing came up in the 'how do I analyse literature'. How can one ask the question of why something happens if it is not in the abridgment? Yet, it must be important as the writer put it into his work.

I always say that abrdgments are for sissies. :D

[MarkBastable]

Personally, I would not read an abridgement of a "Complete Shakespeare" (someone just suggested I am the type who would -- just thought I'd put that straight, Shakespeare is God in my books...)

That's a pretty irresistible irony. You won't read an abridged Shakespeare on the basis that Shakespeare is God to you. But then you suggest an abridged Bible for those to whom God is God.

I'm assuming you intended that to be funny - which rather endears you to me.

[kiki1982]

And, remind me... Why would one abridge the works of Shakespeare? Are they not short enough each of them apart? :p

[dfloyd]

because they don't have to read them!

[Nemo Neem]

Abridge works are intended to be the "re-workings" of another author, or how one person envisions how a particular work should be.

[Modest Proposal]

I haven't read an abridgement and wouldn't recommend one, besides 'Life of Samuel Johnson'. It's not that I would tell anyone they SHOULD read the abridgement over the original, I can just understand why they'd want to. There is a lot of brilliant writing but it seems fairly conducive--in that particular work--to being pared down into a more digestable size. Again, as a general rule I don't condone it, but non-fiction is something I understand--especially when the information is more important then the art.

[stlukesguild]

What makes you think there is less art involved in non-fiction than fiction?

I always say that abrdgments are for sissies.:D

Pretty much sums it up for me as well.:brow:

[DanielBenoit]

I stay away from abridgments like a disease. I was apaulled to find out that the Count of Monte Cristo I was reading was abridged :crash:

[Modest Proposal]

What makes you think there is less art involved in non-fiction than fiction?

Not that there IS less art involved but that non-fiction offers something besides art--namely 'facts'. I'm suggesting a circumstance in which the information is what the reader wants/needs. I had little time to read the book but wanted to get Johnson's biographical information.

I had a feeling this question would pop up. I am not suggesting that non-fiction is not as artistic, but that those who read it may be reading it for the substance not the style. Like a textbook.

Also, I'm not saying that there are no facts in novels, or that the only reason to read novels is for aesthetic diversion, or that the only reason to read non-fiction is for facts--what I am suggesting is that there are circumstances in which abridgements make sense. I pride myself in reading long books and difficult books and doing the author's justice by finishing them and considering them carefully, however I also have only one life to live and must choose where my time is spent--and that sometimes means leaving an author to weep in a grave that I read an edited version of their book. Now Joyce, I would NEVER do the disservice of skimming. Have you heard that he's the 20th century's best author?

I do want to stress my intention behind saying "when the information is more important than the art." I was refering to the reader's judgement of importance, not the writer's, suggesting that the information in non-fiction could be the reason they are reading the work.

[blazeofglory]

I never like abridgement and not even translation in point of fact. I preferably read the original, unabridged, full-length book for when a book is abridged, edited or translation the original rhythm and intensity the poet has gets lost and I never recommend