Abridged Vs Unabridged books

[chrysalis_stage]

Does any one prefer either type?

 

And does anyone have any tips for making sure when buying books online you know they are unabridged - ie, the classics on amazon uk?

[Kylie]

I definitely prefer unabridged. I like to read a book the way it was orginally intended to be read. I would hate to think that I was missing out on something!

[chrysalis_stage]

Yes thats my thoughts too, but I'm always unsure whether a book is or not when buying offline, its quite annoying.

[Chimera]

Unabridged of course! Abridged editions seem like watered down versions of the books... If I'm going to read a book, I'll make the effort to read it fully, or what's the point?

 

I don't have any tricks to offer Chrysalis, sorry. Though I can definitely relate to that. It's very frustrating not to be able to tell what you're about to buy...

[Echo]

Always unabridged! I try to look carefully at the reviews and product descriptions on Amazon before I buy.

[Janet]

Always unabridged.

 

Unabridged of course! Abridged editions seem like watered down versions of the books... If I'm going to read a book, I'll make the effort to read it fully, or what's the point?

However, I do think the abridged ones have their place. My children, neither of whom are 'readers' despite hubby and I both being so, have read quite a few of the classics abridged at school - I'd rather that than them not read at all.

[Kate]

I prefer unabridged however I would read abridged

[BookJumper]

I remember borrowing Bram Stoker's "Dracula" from the school library when I was little and enjoying it immensely; when, some five years later, I thought it was time to have my own copy, I found myself confronted with passages I'd never seen before. I felt like the library had robbed and cheated me by lending me a butchered book. I'd much rather school libraries didn't stock certain books at all, rather than doing away with the bits that are too difficult or unsuitable - what's wrong with waiting until a child is old enough to read the classics as intended?

 

As for tips to avoid buying abridged books by mistake, Amazon usually says "[Abridged]" beside the title of a book when it is; and users are pretty good at supplying that kind of information when Amazon fails to. Also, the now rather common "Look Inside!" feature should help, as it allows you to see the back cover (at the bottom of which the publishers usually tell you if a work is abridged or not). Hope that helps!

[Kell]

Does any one prefer either type?

 

And does anyone have any tips for making sure when buying books online you know they are unabridged - ie, the classics on amazon uk?

Unabridged is always better - you get the full work as the author intended. With classics, an abridged copy will always be marked as being so as far as I'm aware.

[Chimera]

I felt like the library had robbed and cheated me by lending me a butchered book. I'd much rather school libraries didn't stock certain books at all, rather than doing away with the bits that are too difficult or unsuitable - what's wrong with waiting until a child is old enough to read the classics as intended?

 

Yes, that's what I meant. I think it's ok if it's just a possibility offered (clearly labelled) in the library but I remember reading several abridged versions in class and like Bookjumper I felt completely cheated: I was made to read these abridged versions and then of course didn't want to go and read the full version as I now knew the story. But I didn't feel like I had enjoyed fully the books.

 

One of them was Romeo and Juliet... Honestly, why couldn't the teacher have waited one or two years and made us read it the right way?

[BookJumper]

One of them was Romeo and Juliet... Honestly, why couldn't the teacher have waited one or two years and made us read it the right way?

My thoughts exactly. At school, I was made to study Dante paraphrased when I was ten, heavily cut when I was fourteen and in all his glory at eighteen. Problem is, once you get to eighteen you're so bored with this story they've been spoon-feeding you since you were ten than you don't give the 14th century masterpiece the chance it deserves.

 

Over here, it's the same with Shakespeare: by the time pupils get to an age when they might actually be able to appreciate William's language, they've had enough. It's so sad...

[busy91]

I will only read an unabridged version. Especially if it is a Classic. What's the rush?

[Nollaig]

I don't even understand why they print abridged versions. Anybody who appreciates the story will want to read the full thing, and anybody who doesn't get to read the full thing won't fully appreciate it.

 

It's like Director's Cut movies. Take Lord Of The Rings for example. Those movies go on for about 2.5 weeks, and thats just the theatrical versions. But I bought all three directors cuts (about 4 hours apiece) and I'd never watch them any other way again. There are some great extra scenes, and I always feel I'm missing out if I don't see the full thing.

[Janet]

Are you saying that (for example) people who have learning difficulties shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the premise of a story if they can't manage to read the whole thing then?!

 

As I've said before, I do think abridged versions have their uses - and their place in the world of literature.

 

Sure, they're not for me or for most of us on here but if other people need to read abridged versions, or even just want to read abridged versions then I don't see what harm it does - and why they shouldn't be printed!

 

I quite enjoyed LotR - but some scenes went on forever - I can't imagine having the time to sit through the director's cut versions! Mind you, I've never read the books and nor do I have the intention so I'm just taking the films at face value - you can't miss what you haven't had!

[MDR124]

Absolutely unabridged. I'm like RoxiS.C., when I have the possibility I tend to choose the unabridged version. But I can understand Janet's point, and it's fair someone who's for example learning a foreing language have the chance to read something abridged of some great book, before him being able to read it properly.

[Nollaig]

Are you saying that (for example) people who have learning difficulties shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the premise of a story if they can't manage to read the whole thing then?!

 

I love how having an opinion automatically means I believe my views should be imposed on everybody else. I said I don't (i.e, personally) understand why abridged versions are printed (not that they shouldn't be), meaning they are of no use and value to me. Personally I wouldn't read an abridged version of a book I had difficulty with - I'd read something else first instead and come back to it later, like I did with everything I was too young to understand/read when I was a kid. The reason it's called an 'opinion' is because it's a view that's relevant to my character - it's not a belief regarding how things should be.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Nollaig

[busy91]

I could see my daughter reading an abridged version of a book like "Little Woman." I did when I was a kid. She'll get the drift now and later she can re-read the unabridged version. I don't see the purpose of an adult reading it though. But to his/her own right.

[Janet]

Gosh, I didn't think my post was rude Roxi - sorry. I was just interested because you wrote...

 

I don't even understand why they print abridged versions.

Which seemed to be saying (to me) that you didn't understand the need for them.

 

I didn't mean to upset you?

Edited March 18, 2009 by Janet

[Nollaig]

It wasn't so much that the post was rude, it was the giant leap from

 

I don't even understand why they print abridged versions.

 

to

 

Are you saying that (for example) people who have learning difficulties shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the premise of a story if they can't manage to read the whole thing then?!

 

I wasn't SAYING anything of the sort, such things just didn't occur to me.

 

Anyway, I'm all for people printing what they want how they want, I just don't understand why anybody, difficulties or no, would want to read them. Then again, I like Twilight, so I obviously have some issues myself and shouldn't really be allowed have a say.

[busy91]

Then again, I like Twilight, so I obviously have some issues myself and shouldn't really be allowed have a say.

 

OMG this is so funny!

[Nollaig]

Well it's true. I b*tch about it all the time, and it's a disaster, but I love it.

 

Imagine an abridged Twilight, with the cr*p cut out. It'd be like two pages long.

[chrysalis_stage]

I remember borrowing Bram Stoker's "Dracula" from the school library when I was little and enjoying it immensely; when, some five years later, I thought it was time to have my own copy, I found myself confronted with passages I'd never seen before. I felt like the library had robbed and cheated me by lending me a butchered book. I'd much rather school libraries didn't stock certain books at all, rather than doing away with the bits that are too difficult or unsuitable - what's wrong with waiting until a child is old enough to read the classics as intended?

 

As for tips to avoid buying abridged books by mistake, Amazon usually says "[Abridged]" beside the title of a book when it is; and users are pretty good at supplying that kind of information when Amazon fails to. Also, the now rather common "Look Inside!" feature should help, as it allows you to see the back cover (at the bottom of which the publishers usually tell you if a work is abridged or not). Hope that helps!

 

Thanks for the tips I guess I'll have to assume its not abridged if it doesn't say so. I've searched some websites high and low for any indication of if a book abridged of not, sometimes it tells you sometimes it doesn't.

Another thing thats quite annoying is when you buy a book with a title 'and other stories' added on the end but there is not always any explanation/ list of the other stories included. The Kafka book I bought had the look inside feature and I did look but it wasn't the edition I was buying so I had no idea of the other stories included till I bought it - quite annoying but I guess thats the magic you get with bookshops.

 

Unabridged is always better - you get the full work as the author intended. With classics, an abridged copy will always be marked as being so as far as I'm aware.

 

I agree I would prefer to read a unabridged story, I would rather wait and appreciate it in its entirety when the time was right for me, I want to know everything about the book not half of it.

 

Well it's true. I b*tch about it all the time, and it's a disaster, but I love it.

 

Imagine an abridged Twilight, with the cr*p cut out. It'd be like two pages long.

 

This made me laugh! I haven't read them myself and don't have any urge either even though I reckon the film is good. My friend who doesn't normally read books has read them all though and enjoyed them - I see them as a light read.

[Chimera]

Are you saying that (for example) people who have learning difficulties shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the premise of a story if they can't manage to read the whole thing then?!

 

No, that's absolutely their right. But it definitely (imo) shouldn't be imposed/ set as a class text.

[I'mRose]

Han anyone experienced this? I went to my local library to pick up The Count of Monte Cristo and at first I found this one book in the young adults section which was about 300 pages. I thought it seemed short since my boyfriend had talked about reading it when he was younger and told me it was several books long.

 

So I decided to ask the librarian if they had the full version. Sure she said and took me down to the basement where all the old books seemed to live. She proceeded to give me two books, both around 300 pages long. I though this seemed fine and I read them and really liked them. Then I went home to my boyfriends house and he showed me the version he had read. It was six books all around 300 pages! They stole parts of my book, why would they do that! I even asked for the full version.

Why do they do this to classics? I don't think they would decide to shorten a modern book. Anyway I just feel robbed of some of the story.

[Steeeeve]

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.

I understand the need for shorter versions for people who want them but it should always be labelled clearly if it's an abridged version. They do shorten modern books. Especially for stuff like Readers' Digets anthologies.

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.