Abridged Vs Unabridged books

[I'mRose]

That does seem a bit odd. You'd especially expect the librarian to know what she was talking about. Having said that my copy is *goes to check* just under 900 pages long with quite small text.

.

 

My version had, although a small print, 1.5 pt line spacing and pictures here and there! I mean I've missed at least 1/3 of the book. I don't feel like reading it all over again but if I ever decided to re-read it in the future I will make sure it's all of the book. But as you said I'm not sure she is the best librarian. I will definitely look twice next time I borrow a classic.

[Ooshie]

They do shorten modern books. Especially for stuff like Readers' Digets anthologies.

 

I hadn't thought about those for years. I remember my grandparents used to get them, one volume a month containing four abridged books, if I remember rightly. I used to read them when we visited.

[Vladd]

Personally I'm like you. I only want the full version. If the author wrote it then I want to read it...although there are more than a few books I've read that could do with having vast chunks removed.

 

Moby Dick springs to mind

[Cookie]

I prefer unabridged books. I like to think I'm getting more for my money.

[Melisa]

I'm sure I read a childrens copy of Little Women when I was about 7 and

Beth didn't even die!

 

 

How shocked was I when I read it about 10 years later!