I Hate Abridgements

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Or "Abridgments"?

Either way. On the one hand, I honestly prefer really short books. Give me an 80 page book with a knock-out idea and I'm the happiest cupcake in the dozen.

But if I'm going to read a long book, I generally want to read the whole thing. What's the point of reading one-third of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? Who wants to read The Forty Nights And A Night? Why not go for the whole thing?

Here talk about commonly abridged books that you have either read the entirety of, or read an abrdigment of and felt either satisfied or cheated.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 04:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I've always steered clear of abridgements, but I just got Moses Maimonides' "The Guide of the Perplexed" through interloan, and was a bit dissapointed to realize that it was an abridged edition.
But, in the end, I realize that it's probably just as well. It's an interesting book, but I think I'd be daunted if I got the whole block to gulp down in four weeks... Admittedly, this sort of book might not suffer as much from being abridged as novels or historical texts.
I'll have to report back here once I've finished it, as I haven't even begun the thing yet...

― Øystein H-O (Øystein H-O), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 04:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I, too, eschew abridgements. The worst case I've come across is Pepys' Diary, which the Victorians Bowdlerised (they didn't want the ladies reading Pepys' sexual adventures, although that kind of thing was the very fabric of society in the 17th century).

Then there is the incomprehensible case of The Wind in the Willows, which was abridged for God-nose-what purpose. I had to show my dad the whole text before he would believe me that his edition had been shortened.

Abridgement is censorship, no matter what the justification is. If a writer had wanted a shorter book, the author would have written a shorter book.

― SRH (Skrik), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 05:17 (twenty-one years ago)

The only abridged book I've ever read was Gulliver's Travels and I don't think I'll ever read the original as even the abridged version was so boring. I've got a version of The Human Bondage, abridged by the author himself, but haven't read it yet.

― Fred (Fred), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 10:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I guess that's part of the question: If the original book isn't worth slogging through in its entirety, will any abridgment save it?

Gulliver's Travels was a bit duller than I expected, although there was enough interesting stuff in the first two sections to keep me going.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's fun to randomly leaf through The Golden Bough, and my abridged edition is a lot easier to leaf through. So my criteria for happiness is met there.

Abridged fiction is a great evil. Although there are some novels where, if one was studying it at college, and one said "okay, okay, I get it already" about halfway through Don Quixote such a thing might be a blessing in disguise.

― selfnoise, Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I found an abridged copy of "Jane Eyre" once. It began: "Jane decided against taking a walk". And I was close to tears.

― Tinka, Thursday, 19 August 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Call me lazy, but I own a copy of the abridged version of Les Miserables, not the full version. I don't think I will ever read the full version unless I break a leg and I am bed-ridden for months.

― Jessa (Jessa), Thursday, 19 August 2004 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Call me lazy, but I own a copy of the abridged version of Les Miserables, not the full version. I don't think I will ever read the full version unless I break a leg and I am bed-ridden for months.

― jessa (Jessa), Thursday, 19 August 2004 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

In grade school I was given a book as a prize for winning some contest (winter poetry, I think). I chose Little Women, and devoured it. Later I checked a version out from the library that had illustrations, and it seemed very different. My prize book had been abridged! That was pretty devastating, as a child. (I read the unabridged Les Miserables once. I had extensive oral surgery at age 14, and didn't want to leave the house for weeks because I was swollen and green. I'm not sure it was worth it at that age.)

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Thursday, 19 August 2004 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

No offense, but the way my browser split your lines made your post double its value for me.

I read the unabridged Les Miserables once. I had extensive oral surgery

Hey, abridging for [lousy] comedy value! I should hook up with a publisher post haste and release the jocular bible. We put the 'rip' back in scripture.

― Øystein H-O (Øystein H-O), Thursday, 19 August 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

The audio book version of the Clinton book is abridged. I find myself thankful...the first chapters are the best. Once he gets to Washington it reads like a political speech recounting his entire administration.

― 57 7th (calstars), Thursday, 19 August 2004 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

one year passes...

i accidentally bought an abridged copy of of human bondage. it was at a thrift store for 20 cents, so i figured yay. i just realized 4 months later, in small print at the bottom of the front cover it says, "WITH A NEW INTRODUCTION FROM THE AUTHOR WRITTEN ESPECIALLY FOR THIS ABRIDGED EDITION" and felt a pang. i wasted 20 cents. or did i? should i just read it? maybe it will be good but should i just wait until i find the real thing?

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 21:55 (nineteen years ago)

Well, it is author approved. But although it's been a long, long time since I read OHB, I don't recall it really needing any abridging.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 22:23 (nineteen years ago)

the introduction is actually pretty nice and he goes a long way in convincing me that it's ok to read the abridgment, but i just started another book instead. i always see this in used bookstores anyway, so maybe i'll just get a replacement. or get it from the library!

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 03:37 (nineteen years ago)

what is his reason for accepting an abridgement, caitlin?

― Josh (Josh), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 06:42 (nineteen years ago)

basically that it allows the book to reach a wider audience and that it doesn't ruin it in the way that cutting a piece of music or visual art does and some things in semi-autobiographical novels are too personal to be really meaningful to the reader anyway

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 20:13 (nineteen years ago)

i don't

― Fred (Fred), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 23:47 (nineteen years ago)

i can't really think of any works i've ever owned (hardly even seen!) in abridged versions, except for spengler's 'decline of the west', which was authorized by him or his family or something like that due to the original being colossally over-long.

maybe i'm not buying enough mass, mass market paperbacks. of course the fancy lookin books i like to buy come unabridged so we fancy lookin book owners can preen about ourselves.

― Josh (Josh), Saturday, 7 January 2006 21:56 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.