abridged versions???

purple_fishy · 07-11-2011, 06:55 PM

I noticed that Barnes and Noble has lots of abridged versions of classics such as Little Women marketed for younger readers. Seeing as how my daughter is seven and we are moving into chapter books, I thought these might be a good way for her to get introduced to these classics. What do you guys think? I have all of the unabridged versions on my Nook thanks to this forum.

CRussel · 07-11-2011, 07:40 PM

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to go with an abridged version. If your daughter isn't ready for the full version, there are lots of other works available that she is ready for. And that aren't abridged.

issybird · 07-11-2011, 08:27 PM

I agree with Charlie. There's no need for gutted versions of the classics. Little Women is way over the head of a seven-year old.

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.

odiakkoh · 07-11-2011, 08:31 PM

Meh i liked abridged versions as a child (especially the wishbone ones) but even now i cant get into the full versions for some classics. I figure reading something is better than nothing.

Caesius · 07-11-2011, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by odiakkoh

Meh i liked abridged versions as a child (especially the wishbone ones) but even now i cant get into the full versions for some classics. I figure reading something is better than nothing.

But I can't help but wonder if you haven't just provided a perfect argument against abridged versions. I can't know your motives, of course, but could it be that you can't get into the full versions because you already read the abridged ones? Unless you absolutely loved the story, where's the motivation?

I don't like to see a movie version of a book when I haven't read the book yet (and planned to, that is). Reading, for me, is an investment. And so this colors where I'm coming from.

Addendum: I do agree, some exposure is better than no exposure.

odiakkoh · 07-11-2011, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caesius

But I can't help but wonder if you haven't just provided a perfect argument against abridged versions. I can't know your motives, of course, but could it be that you can't get into the full versions because you already read the abridged ones? Unless you absolutely loved the story, where's the motivation?
I don't like to see a movie version of a book when I haven't read the book yet (and planned to, that is). Reading, for me, is an investment. And so this colors where I'm coming from.

For others maybe but im the type that goes out of her way to read the book after watching the movie to see the differences. I did pick up the real versions because i wanted to enjoy it to the fullest and see what i missed growing up.

Catlady · 07-11-2011, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by issybird

I agree with Charlie. There's no need for gutted versions of the classics. Little Women is way over the head of a seven-year old.

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.

Ditto.

You might also consider the Betsy-Tacy series by Maud Hart Lovelace. Like the Little House books, they also start with a five-year-old Betsy and continue through childhood, high school, and young adulthood. They have just recently been released as e-books.

Xanthe · 07-12-2011, 12:03 AM

I got interested in the classics by reading Classics Illustrated comics, and if those weren't abridged versions then I don't know what is.

I'm of the some-exposure-to-the-books-is-better-than-no-exposure school of thought, regarding children.

For adults, there's no worthy excuse for reading abridged versions, IMHO.

purple_fishy · 07-12-2011, 01:12 AM

Good points on both sides.

I see the value in reading the full books but I also think that even just a taste of a good story will spark the desire to read it again as an older child/teen/adult. And when that revistation occurs, I highly doubt she will be looking in the children's section for abridged versions. As a child, I remember reading some unabridged classics like A little Princess and Black Beauty but I also read lots of abridged versions of books like The Man in the Iron Mask, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and a few more. I grew up and own the full version of all of them. So I don't know...

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

taosaur · 07-12-2011, 01:54 AM

For a while in my teens and twenties I almost resented the set of abridged classics I received and tore through as a child, but at this point I can't say it did me any harm. It didn't stop me from reading many of the originals later, and it gave me at least some grounding in others which I may never read. At this point, I have enough books of sound character before and behind me that I don't mind having skimmed The Counte of Monte Cristo or Oliver Twist. The worst result is that I've occasionally had to stop and think whether I really did read a given book or it was part of that abridged set.

crich70 · 07-12-2011, 03:05 AM

I'd say the simplified abridged versions of books can be good for a young child who is a little slow in their learning how to read, but they do miss out on some of the flavor of the unabridged version if they have normal reading comprehension for their age and read the shorter abridged version rather than what the author actually wrote.

Giggleton · 07-12-2011, 03:48 AM

It would depend on the quality of the bridging. Most of the classics I read could stand to lose a few chapters here and there IMO.

Hamlet53 · 07-12-2011, 07:12 AM

We should turn this into a poll.

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.

Catlady · 07-12-2011, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xanthe

I got interested in the classics by reading Classics Illustrated comics, and if those weren't abridged versions then I don't know what is.

I'm of the some-exposure-to-the-books-is-better-than-no-exposure school of thought, regarding children.

For adults, there's no worthy excuse for reading abridged versions, IMHO.

I read my share of Classics Illustrated comics as well, and I had sharply abridged illustrated books of stories like Black Beauty. But I consider those a totally different species. They're so blatantly different from the real thing.

I can remember how betrayed I felt when I found out that the copy of Little Women I'd read and reread as a child was actually an abridgment.

issybird · 07-12-2011, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catlady

I can remember how betrayed I felt when I found out that the copy of Little Women I'd read and reread as a child was actually an abridgment.

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?

07-11-2011, 06:55 PM	#1
purple_fishy Zealot Posts: 124 Karma: 33812 Join Date: May 2011 Location: The land of sand and sun Device: Kindle Paperwhite, Nook STR, iPad Air 2	abridged versions??? I noticed that Barnes and Noble has lots of abridged versions of classics such as Little Women marketed for younger readers. Seeing as how my daughter is seven and we are moving into chapter books, I thought these might be a good way for her to get introduced to these classics. What do you guys think? I have all of the unabridged versions on my Nook thanks to this forum.

07-12-2011, 01:12 AM	#9
purple_fishy Zealot Posts: 124 Karma: 33812 Join Date: May 2011 Location: The land of sand and sun Device: Kindle Paperwhite, Nook STR, iPad Air 2	Good points on both sides. I see the value in reading the full books but I also think that even just a taste of a good story will spark the desire to read it again as an older child/teen/adult. And when that revistation occurs, I highly doubt she will be looking in the children's section for abridged versions. As a child, I remember reading some unabridged classics like A little Princess and Black Beauty but I also read lots of abridged versions of books like The Man in the Iron Mask, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and a few more. I grew up and own the full version of all of them. So I don't know... I am leaning towards just making sure that I have all the age appropriate classics available and get the others as she grows. Last edited by purple_fishy; 07-12-2011 at 01:16 AM. Reason: spelling

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Unabridged Vs ABridged geo restrictions	sergiodongala	Lounge	2	04-19-2010 02:55 AM
Other Non-Fiction Frazer, Sir James: The Golden Bough [Abridged], v1, 28 December 2009.	Patricia	BBeB/LRF Books	0	12-27-2009 10:38 PM
For the Christie Fans - Abridged Finally?	bbusybookworm	News	29	09-20-2008 08:18 AM
Sur Amazon, des versions électroniques plus chères que les versions papier	IreneDelse	Amazon Kindle	8	08-29-2008 08:35 AM
Other Non-Fiction Compton, W. David: Where No Man Has Gone Before (abridged), v1, 13 June 2008	Donnageddon	IMP Books	0	06-14-2008 12:57 AM

07-11-2011, 07:40 PM	#2
CRussel (he/him/his) Posts: 12,296 Karma: 80074820 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Sunshine Coast, BC Device: Oasis (Gen3),Paperwhite (Gen10), Voyage, Paperwhite(orig), iPad Air M3	Sorry, I don't see any good reason to go with an abridged version. If your daughter isn't ready for the full version, there are lots of other works available that she is ready for. And that aren't abridged.

07-11-2011, 08:27 PM	#3
issybird o saeclum infacetum Posts: 21,289 Karma: 234636059 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: New England Device: Mini, H2O, Glo HD, Aura One, PW4, PW5	I agree with Charlie. There's no need for gutted versions of the classics. Little Women is way over the head of a seven-year old. 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.

07-11-2011, 08:31 PM	#4
odiakkoh Guru Posts: 823 Karma: 1818344 Join Date: Apr 2011 Device: iPhone 5s	Meh i liked abridged versions as a child (especially the wishbone ones) but even now i cant get into the full versions for some classics. I figure reading something is better than nothing.

07-12-2011, 12:03 AM	#8
Xanthe Plan B Is Now In Force Posts: 1,894 Karma: 8086979 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Surebleak Device: Aluratek,Sony 350/T1,Pandigital,eBM 911,Nook HD/HD+,Fire HDX 7/8.9,PW2	I got interested in the classics by reading Classics Illustrated comics, and if those weren't abridged versions then I don't know what is. I'm of the some-exposure-to-the-books-is-better-than-no-exposure school of thought, regarding children. For adults, there's no worthy excuse for reading abridged versions, IMHO.

07-12-2011, 01:54 AM	#10
taosaur intelligent posterior Posts: 1,562 Karma: 21295618 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ohiopolis Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2, Samsung S8, Lenovo Tab 3 Pro	For a while in my teens and twenties I almost resented the set of abridged classics I received and tore through as a child, but at this point I can't say it did me any harm. It didn't stop me from reading many of the originals later, and it gave me at least some grounding in others which I may never read. At this point, I have enough books of sound character before and behind me that I don't mind having skimmed The Counte of Monte Cristo or Oliver Twist. The worst result is that I've occasionally had to stop and think whether I really did read a given book or it was part of that abridged set.

07-12-2011, 03:05 AM	#11
crich70 Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,310 Karma: 43993832 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Monroe Wisconsin Device: K3, Kindle Paperwhite, Calibre, and Mobipocket for Pc (netbook)	I'd say the simplified abridged versions of books can be good for a young child who is a little slow in their learning how to read, but they do miss out on some of the flavor of the unabridged version if they have normal reading comprehension for their age and read the shorter abridged version rather than what the author actually wrote.

07-12-2011, 03:48 AM	#12
Giggleton Banned Posts: 1,687 Karma: 4368191 Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Oregon Device: Kindle3	It would depend on the quality of the bridging. Most of the classics I read could stand to lose a few chapters here and there IMO.

07-12-2011, 07:12 AM	#13
Hamlet53 Nameless Being	We should turn this into a poll. 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.

Advert

Advert