abridged versions???

[sun surfer]

"Abridged" is a dirty word to me.

Unless it is in association with "The Stand"; then, by all means.

[DiapDealer]

Maybe not when it comes to most classic "western" works of fiction, but sometimes an abridgement is almost necessary. Translations of Firdausi's epic Shahnameh come to mind.

But overall, yeah... I was never much of a fan of Reader's Digest Condensed versions.

[Phogg]

Olsen's Standard Book of British Birds, expurgated version.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

Catlady, were we separated at birth? First the Betsy-Tacy love, and now the abridged LW.... I think the one I read was by Golden Books? With a shiny cover? What dastard takes such advantage of an unsuspecting little girl who loves to read?

Could be! Though I didn't read B-T till adulthood, more's the pity.

I'm pretty sure this is the one I had, though I could have sworn Jo was eating an apple in the cover drawing on mine. I had a bunch of similar Whitman editions, including some Bobbsey Twins.

[issybird]

Whitman! That's what it was. The same publisher who put out the Trixie Beldens and Donna Parkers I read at the same age.

The endpaper looks right on the linked book but I don't think that's the cover I had, either. Thanks for the walk down memory lane.

[taosaur]

I totally understand objecting to abridged children's classics on principle, and I also felt some sense of betrayal when I started having to sort out whether I'd read the 'real' book or an abridgment, but in hindsight I have to say the results were net positive. That influx of 20-30 books into my environment not only encouraged my reading, but encouraged me to seek out something more challenging than The Hardy Boys or Encyclopedia Brown (even if the editions in my possession had been outfitted with training wheels). They also gave me a broader perspective on literature and the roots of popular culture much earlier than I might otherwise have attained it.

Arguably, if I hadn't read those abridged classics, I may never have gained the perspective to later resent having read them.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

Whitman! That's what it was. The same publisher who put out the Trixie Beldens and Donna Parkers I read at the same age.

The endpaper looks right on the linked book but I don't think that's the cover I had, either. Thanks for the walk down memory lane.

That's how I felt, too--I recognized the endpaper, but I think my copy had Jo lying down, with that apple.

Right, Whitman published the Trixie Beldens too, as well as a bunch of TV tie-ins--Roy Rogers, Annette Funicello, Rin-Tin-Tin. They had glossy, coated pictorial covers, and the coating would peel off.

Whitman and Golden Books were part of the same publishing house, I think.

[Caesius]

-= Classics Illustrated comics=-

Wow... Thanks for sparking that memory. I suppose it hits us all in different ways. We seem to agree that abridged versions don't have much of a place with adult readers. But now that I consider everything I read as a child (including Classics Illustrated comics), I see how even an abridged version will feed the fires of imagination. And really, those of us with kids are certainly happy to see our kids read, abridged or not.

I remember when I was about 10 or 11, my mother knew I loved science fiction so she got me a subscription to a science fiction magazine called "Galileo." I received 3 or 4 issues before she discovered the adult language (specifically an F word that doesn't rhyme with "bovine") and she cancelled the subscription. I totally get why she did that. But my attitude at the time was not one that had me sneaking it to my friends and giggling in the corner of the classroom. Instead, it was serious fiction and as it was written that way... presented that way... I took it that way. It wasn't a conscious decision. In fact, before she did that, the word in question had little clout. I just saw it as an indicator that I was reading something adult (not the sexually graphic version of 'adult' -- or if it was, it was lost on me at 10). I did realize that much of my vocabulary was enhanced by reading things that were not specific to my age group. But, again, as a parent, I see the value in such things.

[orange!]

Abridged books are abominations. What editor do you trust to decide what should be removed? But, yes, that's my reaction as an adult.

Some very good points have been made about finding age-appropriate reading for children.

Originally Posted by issybird

...Why not start on the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder? They have the advantage of a POV of Laura starting at age five, and then aging as Laura grew.

Originally Posted by purple_fishy

Good points on both sides....I am leaning towards just making sure that I have all the age appropriate classics available and get the others as she grows.

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

...I am with those that say forget the abridged versions. There are plenty of age appropriate books available for any age. One does not need to have the child's first exposure to a book be a mutilated version.

But most of all, I agree with Caesius, who made this point:

Originally Posted by Caesius

...I see how even an abridged version will feed the fires of imagination. And really, those of us with kids are certainly happy to see our kids read, abridged or not...

Well said!

Also, loved your story about Galileo magazine. Poor parents, sometimes it's hard for us!

I hope I am not guilty of 'bumping' for inserting this. It just seemed appropriate to put this here, concerning the general subject of this thread being reading material for children.

Author Jeff Kinney Talks Pulp Fiction For Kids

Once upon a time, we picture good little children on a lazy summer afternoon reading “The Wind in the Willows” or “Charlotte’s Web” or maybe “Treasure Island.” Tales of derring-do and coziness and moral uplift.

Today, the fare is rougher. Less dewey-eyed. Among the biggest-sellers: “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” by Jeff Kinney.

His middle-school boy anti-hero is like Bart Simpson in a bad mood. Vindictive, mean, lazy. And a superstar to young readers. “He gets them to read,” parents say.

link to broadcast available for download.


I thought that this comment left by Elen7 was funny:

even though i haven't read Mr. Kinney's books he sounded like an author who would not glorify anyone 'evil'. i wonder whether the good rabbi has read Macbeth recently (standard high school fare) or indeed Alice in Wonderland, with all the talk of cutting off heads and allusions to drug use. i was amused by the talk of Wind in the Willows because that was the only book we ever (and i don't say this with pride) had to take away from our child, a quarter of a century ago. at the age of 4 he could read nearly anything that he found in the house (with, of course, various degrees of understanding) but he modeled himself on Toad!

[purple_fishy]

Hamlet53, thanks for posting that! It was an interesting read.

[speakingtohe]

I really liked The Story Girl as a child. Anne of Greene Gables, not as much, and Little Women went over my head. I know this because I remember asking my mother questions about it and getting the "you'll understand when you grow up" answer.

To her credit, she never censored my reading, and some of it was probably innapropriate. even as young as six.

One of the nice things about pbooks, is they can be just there for a child to choose by themselves, based on cover, subject, size etc.

Helen

[Joykins]

I don't favor abridged versions of classic works in general--I would certainly try other children's books and work up to the classics if the child isn't quite ready for that level.

On the other hand, I read an abridged version of War and Peace when I was about 19 and that was cracktastic, it was awesome, I literally could not put it down-- and I've never been able to finish the full thing, so there you go.

[Aladyleyna]

I'm for abridged versions; I grew up on them and they fueled my love for reading. And when I was old enough, I sought out the unabridged versions, and ended up liking them even more than the abridged versions because I realised that they really left a lot of stuff out, and changed certain parts to boot. It was like watching a movie and seeing all the changes, but it was fun, in a way.

The good thing about abridged versions is that at least they introduce the classics to those of a younger age, and encourages them to read the full versions when they are older if they like the plot, which I think is a great idea.

[Caesius]

Originally Posted by orange!

Well said!

Also, loved your story about Galileo magazine. Poor parents, sometimes it's hard for us!

Thanks Orange! That's was kind of you to say.* I really do enjoy coming here from time to time. Of course I have enjoyed getting new info from fellow members (book recommendations, hardware, software, silverware, what have you), but I also like how the discussion process allows me to put my initial reaction/opinion out there, then upon get a response (or reading related entries and points of view), I'll sometimes amend my initial comment or even reconsider my position entirely. And sometimes I'll simply go get a glass of water.

*Although, since I don't know you, I suppose it could have been very much you to say that, and not just "kind of (i.e.. sort of) you" to say. Sorry, sometimes I get funny and punny confused. Yeah, I should get some rest and try again later.