Opinions on Abridged Classics for Kids

[Macrina]

Specifically The Great Illustrated Classics series. Give me your thoughts on letting your kids read them. Don't hold back, I want lots of opinions with your reasons!!

[jld]

Ds came across these a few years ago, and checked out several from the library, or got some from Goodwill. He really enjoyed them. This was in 2nd and 3rd grade.

 

Now, in 5th grade, he is really irritated he read those, because he wants to read the unabridged versions, but he already knows the endings. He feels like they've been ruined for him (his words).

 

Back when he was asking for them, I thought I was helping him out by helping him get them. Now I guess I was supposed to know *not* to get them for him, but to insist he wait for the unabridged versions.

 

Man, it's hard to win as a mom . . .

[Jana]

My son has really loved these and I am grateful he does. I thought he would never, ever read anything else besides the Box Car Children (and he would read 2-3 a day). For my son, knowing the endings will help him be able to read the unabridged versions (but that is just who he is). He does not like to be surprised-AT ALL.

 

So for my son, it has generated an greater interest, not extinguished it.

[abbeyej]

That series actually entails *adaptations*, not abridgments. I tend to avoid things that have been retold by "invisible" authors. They may retain the major plot points, but lose not only large percentages of lesser story moments, but also all of the original language, vocabulary, and complex syntax.

 

There are so many wonderful books for children! I would rather my kids read good books written for children, rather than more complex works that have been watered down beyond recognition.

 

I don't think reading one here or there is a disaster. We've had a few show up on our shelves over the years. But I consider them on a level with "Magic Tree House" and "Junie B", not stepping stones to the original literature they purport to retell.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I've always felt as though the first classics they should read are the "real" ones. I don't like the abridged versions. I've read them aloud to our dc and that's been great because we can discuss them if we need to. But, I just feel that the abridged versions lack the substance you want for your dc that you get in a classic.

 

JMHO.

[LibraryLover]

My feelings on this topic are more pragmatic. I think they can be fine, esp if you plan to read the originals. They can be good introductions for difficult texts *for some kids*. If the child is already familiar with the story they can understand the language of the original better. "Oh, I know what this means!" can keep a child going ahead rather than tossing the book aside in confusion or frustration.

 

Fe, and don't throw tomatoes, I think the No Fear Shakespeare books can help develop a love & appreciation for young people who might be confused by old English or convinced the old guy has nothing to say to them. If they can understand that Macbeth is a really interesting story, the thees and thous and unfamiliar or dead words will not seem as daunting. (Which is why I like the movie Shakespeare in Love. It helps makes what seem irrelevant more enticing. I have wondered if there is a version for schools with the sex scene eliminated. My teens have seen it, but it's not a scene many people would want shown in schools).

 

As the only diet, no, I am not a huge fan.

 

Wow, rambling post. lol

Edited January 9, 2010 by LibraryLover

[EKS]

I'm fine with abridgments and/or *good* adaptations of non-English stories, such as the Iliad, the Odyssey, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and so forth. I'm also fine up to a point with abridgments (but not adaptations) of literature written in English. I would not have my children read the Great Illustrated Classics series, because they are adapted, and also because they are adaptations of stories that should be fully accessible to children in their original form (my son read most of the ones listed on the first two screens at Amazon by the time he was 11 or 12, and he has dyslexia).

[Jean in Newcastle]

We used a couple of them in 2nd and 3rd grade as part of our history/literature study. The ones we used did not deviate from the story line of the original. I found that using them in the early years gave us access to the great ideas and plots found in those books, and complemented our study of history.

 

Ds12 has now read the originals of those as well as plenty of classics directly from the original. It hasn't affected his reading pleasure.

[Pretty in Pink]

I don't care for them. We have a few floating around somewhere that my mom purchased as gifts, but I won't spend money on them.

[Parrothead]

I think they have their place. A good adaption of the Odyssey in 1st grade lead to an abridgment to the Odyssey in 5th grade. I'm hoping in 9th dd will be able to read the original.

[abbeyej]

I think they have their place. A good adaption of the Odyssey in 1st grade lead to an abridgment to the Odyssey in 5th grade. I'm hoping in 9th dd will be able to read the original.

 

Right. Good retellings. "Black Ships Before Troy" in first grade. Ken Crossley's "Beowulf" in second grade...

 

But those are a far cry from the "Great Illustrated Classics", which are not particularly well-written and re-tell a number of stories that children *could* read themselves, in the near future.

[Macrina]

So is there a particular series of ABRIDGED books vs. adapted books that are recommended?

 

For example, let's say your dc listens to Anne of Green Gables, unabridged, on CD and then wants to read it herself, but can't handle the original text.

 

Or she is going to see the music Oliver! the musical with friends, but you feel she should have some understanding of the original first, but you really don't have time to read/listen to the original.

 

Or somebody lets your dc watch the Disney vs. of Robin Hood and she thinks Robin was really a fox so you want her to read the book but there is no way she's going to be able to handle Pyle's version even on CD?

 

What then?

[Margo out of lurking]

Specifically The Great Illustrated Classics series. Give me your thoughts on letting your kids read them. Don't hold back, I want lots of opinions with your reasons!!

 

My opinion has changed on this over the years. I used to think my children should wait and read the pure, "real" story.

 

But I am at the point now where I don't think that will happen in every case. I would prefer my ds know and be familiar with many of these stories, instead of never read them at all. On the flip side, I want to be choosy--I don't want him to read every single one of these and think that he's "done that."

 

Somewhere, for my family, is the balance. When my kids were younger, we read children's versions of The Iliad, or of Shakespeare (for example). I don't anticipate this will kill their interest down the road; rather, it will pique it. The characters are familiar, they've had a taste and are interested in more.

 

Specifically, I do like the series you mention. When I do give children's versions to my son, I'm picky, and I'd stick with The Great Illustrated Classics. From what I've seen, the chapters line up with the original books. On the other hand, I recently brought home their version of A Tale of Two Cities. I was disappointed to find that it did not include the famous line, "It was the best of time, it was the worst of times." I figured ds can wait on this book and I returned it.

[Caribbean Queen]

I grew up reading children's literature of increasing difficulty and by the time I was grown I could read any book - without reading the children's version first. I read the Odyssey at age 12, with no help from the picture book, children's version, abridged book or movie. I am no genius, so I think if I could do it, so could anybody. Reading children's literature (not easy fluff, not abridged books) prepared me.

 

I think of The Well Trained Mind as a rigorous education and was surprised to see that the author thinks children need abridged books because they will be afraid of the classics and will not be able to understand them without knowing the plots ahead of time. I wouldn't expect that from a classically educated child. Am I misinterpreting TWTM?

 

If you want abriged books, Illustrated Classics are for you. The language isn't overly simple. In my opinion, they are much better than Magic Treehouse and Junei B. Jones books. They have lots of pictures. They are sturdy, inexpensive, and have reasonable sized type.

[Harriet Vane]

That series actually entails *adaptations*, not abridgments. I tend to avoid things that have been retold by "invisible" authors. They may retain the major plot points, but lose not only large percentages of lesser story moments, but also all of the original language, vocabulary, and complex syntax.

 

There are so many wonderful books for children! I would rather my kids read good books written for children, rather than more complex works that have been watered down beyond recognition.

I don't think reading one here or there is a disaster. We've had a few show up on our shelves over the years. But I consider them on a level with "Magic Tree House" and "Junie B", not stepping stones to the original literature they purport to retell.

 

:iagree: with all you've written, especially what's highlighted.

 

My dd and I both *hate* abridgements and adaptations. Hate them. Just this week dd has been re-reading the Little House series and told me she regrets reading other Little House books that were not written by Laura Ingalls Wilder as they are really not very good.

[hsmom3tn]

One of my girls has read a few of these, and I didn't mind. I let her know, though, that she would still be expected to read "the real thing" later on and she wouldn't be able to argue that she'd already read it.

[Harriet Vane]

[quote=Caribbean Queen;1419171

I think of The Well Trained Mind as a rigorous education and was surprised to see that the author thinks children need abridged books because they will be afraid of the classics and will not be able to understand them without knowing the plots ahead of time. I wouldn't expect that from a classically educated child. Am I misinterpreting TWTM?

 

 

I asked SWB this very question at a conference once. She explained that as a college professor her experience has been with poorly prepared, overwhelmed freshman students--she has found that they are intimidated by the work of reading classics.

 

I never told my kids that classics were something to fear--I have just been careful not to force a classic before the kid is ready for it. The results in our family have been positive so far.

 

In teaching co-op classes I have found that some students do fear/are intimidated by the classics, though I have also seen that a little extra handholding through the first one soothes those fears pretty well. One of the very best tools for demystifying the classics, IMHO, is reading aloud, and reading it with care and expression and passion. That way the kid can hear the way it's supposed to be and settle into more comfortable reading themselves.

[Starr]

Dc read a few abridged classics when they were fairly young. It hasn't stopped them from reading originals and they know the plot line of the books they haven't read yet. I find that my dc are happy to reread books they enjoy as well as repeat watching of movies. I think the key is to keep finding books that are more complex so their reading improves. I don't worry much about giving them a book at 13 plus that has been read in an abridged addition at 9.

[nmoira]

There are so many wonderful books for children! I would rather my kids read good books written for children, rather than more complex works that have been watered down beyond recognition.

:iagree: with all you've written, especially what's highlighted.

 

My dd and I both *hate* abridgements and adaptations. Hate them. Just this week dd has been re-reading the Little House series and told me she regrets reading other Little House books that were not written by Laura Ingalls Wilder as they are really not very good.

Yes, yes, yes. :)

 

I'm somewhat on the fence with respect to Shakespeare, but I'm leaning towards only original texts. This would make my proverbial line Don Quixote, for which we do have a number of retellings. Most literary works written after this are accessible to mature and experienced readers.

[Jen500]

Dc read a few abridged classics when they were fairly young. It hasn't stopped them from reading originals and they know the plot line of the books they haven't read yet. I find that my dc are happy to reread books they enjoy as well as repeat watching of movies. I think the key is to keep finding books that are more complex so their reading improves. I don't worry much about giving them a book at 13 plus that has been read in an abridged addition at 9.

 

:iagree:

My dc spend hours everyday reading. If they didn't read as much as they do, I might be more selective in guiding their choices.

[Karen in CO]

So is there a particular series of ABRIDGED books vs. adapted books that are recommended?

 

For example, let's say your dc listens to Anne of Green Gables, unabridged, on CD and then wants to read it herself, but can't handle the original text.

Read it with her - biddy reading is a great bridge into higher books and makes for great shared experiences.

Or she is going to see the music Oliver! the musical with friends, but you feel she should have some understanding of the original first, but you really don't have time to read/listen to the original.

 

Oh just let her experience it then read it later. It is wonderful even without reading it first.

 

Or somebody lets your dc watch the Disney vs. of Robin Hood and she thinks Robin was really a fox so you want her to read the book but there is no way she's going to be able to handle Pyle's version even on CD?

 

Eek!!!! Here is a whole list of Robin Hood versions. Robin Hood is one of those that I put on the side of retellings are fine because it is a story adopted from folklore.

What then?

 

When my dd wanted to read Alice in Wonderland, I let my hubby pick out the book. He couldn't decide and came home with four versions - one of them was abridged, one was adapted, one was original and one has essays accompanying it. My dd read the first chapter of each then decided that the original was best. She saved the abridged for her little sister in case she wanted to read it before she was "old enough" and had hubby return the adapted. I kept the one with the literary essays for me.

 

On the other hand, I have several copies of Shakespeare adaptations, including comic strip versions and illustrated versions - because the stories are awesome, and I take my kids to see Shakespeare in the park in the summers, but it will be a few more years before they can read a full play.

 

 

Enjoy your kids, and enjoy your books.

[lovemyboys]

:iagree: with all you've written, especially what's highlighted.

 

My dd and I both *hate* abridgements and adaptations. Hate them. Just this week dd has been re-reading the Little House series and told me she regrets reading other Little House books that were not written by Laura Ingalls Wilder as they are really not very good.

 

I didn't know these existed. Dh and dc read through these for a couple years as their bedtime reading together with dh encouraging them to read first a sentence or two, progressing to alternating pages and chapters in the final LIW books.

 

My bugaboo with abridged versions is that it "steals" the beautiful writing and plot from wonderful books when dc read them in early elem. years rather than waiting to digest the actual book when able to in middle/high school years. kwim?

 

eta: I should add that I have used books like Abbey mentions for mythology, Shakespeare, etc. that give dc some familiarity and comfort with works that might otherwise be quite daunting later.

Edited January 9, 2010 by lovemyboys

[Laura Corin]

I'm not keen on abridged classics. The boys read abridged versions of stories which are either myths or have been so absorbed into the culture that they somehow exist alongside the original work (Homer, Shakespeare). They also read abridged versions of stories that I doubt that they will (for whatever reason) read in the original (Pilgrim's Progress). However, if there is a possibility of reading the true text at a later stage, we don't use abridged versions. We just wait to enjoy the full pleasure of the event.

 

Laura

[abbeyej]

I'm somewhat on the fence with respect to Shakespeare, but I'm leaning towards only original texts. ...

 

Okay, this is another spot where I'm willing to read some good retellings. Shakespeare's plays are largely based on older stories that would have been familiar to his audiences -- and given how challenging the language is, it can be very helpful for kids (and adults too!) to go into a play familiar with the plot and major characters. Before the kids and I go see a new (to us) play, we do generally sit down and read a retelling (I like the Garfield versions, 'cause they do a good job of including language from the plays -- but Lamb and Nesbit and others are okay too)... That said, I think most of those retellings aren't very worthwhile on their own. They're an immediate stepping stone into the original (different than, say, reading Black Ships Before Troy in first grade and the Fagles translation of The Iliad in ninth), not a slow introduction... And both of my kids started going to see live Shakespeare at the age of 4... On the other hand, we don't sit down and *read* a whole play straight through till they're quite a bit older (though they've read scenes at a time since they were very young)...

[Brigitte]

I don't know the particular versions you are referring to, but I will put in my 2 cents anyway.....

 

My kids have read abridged versions of some stories when they were just becoming proficient readers. Knowing that we would read the unabridged versions to them or that they would hear them unabridged in the form of an audio book and that they would later read the unabridged version made that concession acceptable to me and dh. I know that the real story will become what they have ingrained as they get older.

 

For some kids, classics are intimidating and the adaptations give them a taste of the real thing before diving into the longer and harder to read version.

 

Now, if I had kids for whom the story would be ruined by knowing the end, I would stay away from an abridged/adapted version. I would also never present the "lesser" versions as being the real thing. I do wish they would be better marked, so unknowing people would know what they are getting.

[KristenS]

To be fair to the other Little House sets ... they (a few years back) decided to abridge them, go figure. One of the authors blogged about it, very upset, and stopped writing for them. So it might be a matter of which version your daughter got.

 

I will have to say, I couldn't get into the Little House books until I read the other books about the other women ... so in that case it was good. But I got most of mine before the abridging went into effect.

 

I'm not much for abridgments or adaptations of children's books, but there are a few I've liked ... I've got a good Robinson Crusoe and a Heidi and a Robin Hood and a Gulliver's Travels, without which I probably wouldn't have tackled the originals. But mostly I like to go to the source ... better writing (usually).

[Gretchen in NJ]

We have just gotten rid of all of ours. My girls did not care for them at all. They prefer the unabridged.

[Caribbean Queen]

Shakespeare is the last thing I would read abridged. Abridged English poetry? Masterpieces should not be changed. It's like painting a smiley face on the Mona Lisa so children can more easily see her smile.

 

Some people say they read abridged Shakespeare so their children know the plots. I don't see why little children would need to know the plots of the plays. They are racy.

 

I have read Shakespeare cold. No Cliff Notes, no movies, no comic books beforehand. It wasn't all that hard. Our children are going to have an excellent education. By the time they 16 they should be able to read anything.

[Caribbean Queen]

We have just gotten rid of all of ours. My girls did not care for them at all. They prefer the unabridged.

 

I also avoid abridged books because I want my children to develop a taste for the language of real literature.

[eternalknot]

Great Illustrated Classics was a good fit for my oldest. He likes to read and re-read stories repeatedly, so knowing the ending has never been a problem for him as he transitioned from an adaptation or abridged version into the "real" version. He liked being able to discuss the major points of stories with the adults in his life, some of whom were reading the originals for their own schoolwork or personal interest. He caught several references to the storylines in popular culture (songs, tv shows, jokes between adults, etc.) as well.

 

He was an early (and voracious) reader who wanted meatier books, and Great Illustrated Classics filled that need beautifully. We liked that they were better content than Magic Treehouse (which he hated), but were still books he could read independently. We do regular readalouds, but there is no way I could ever have kept up with reading aloud the original version of every book he wanted to read - even if I had the desire to do so.

 

He read these books as a 4-5 year old, and they struck an appropriate balance between his reading ability/comprehension levels and his chronological age/interest level. As a 7-9 year old he has revisited many of the same stories, this time reading the original versions. Being familiar with the general storyline has encouraged him to develop an appreciation for the differing language and writing styles between the simplified GIC and the original versions. I don't think it has to be either/or for most kids, but I say that as someone who reads People magazine in between the Great Classics ;)

 

My current four year old reads at a lower level and couldn't handle GIC on her own right now. Her comprehension level is high enough but her (independent) reading ability is low; because of this, there is no real need to introduce her to GIC. She also doesn't care to hear a story more than a few times; with her, she's the kind who will watch the movie and think she can skip the book. We will likely just wait a few years until she can handle the original versions on her own. The GIC books are on our shelves and I wouldn't stop her from reading them if she ever chose to, but I won't be using them with her the way I did with my oldest.

 

I guess it just depends on your kids' personalities and your situation.

Edited January 10, 2010 by eternalknot

[orangearrow]

I didn't read the rest of the replies, so I might repeat someone else.

 

I don't let the kids read any abridgment of a book I have "big plans" for them to read in the future - and those books that I fully expect they'll really enjoy once they "grow into" them.

 

I will, however, let them read abridgments in two situations:

 

1) I think that reading an abridgment will help them understand complicated plot twists, or complicated and/or boring language, in the original version. Such as Moby Dick. :D

 

2) If it's a book I don't think I'll ever put into their hands to read, and am not sure they'll ever come across it naturally, I will probably give them the abridgment to read while they're younger. Such as Swiss Family Robinson, or Black Beauty. Those are two books that I just do not know if they'll ever bother reading - and maybe reading the "short version" could encourage them to pick up the real deal at some point when they're older.

[Heather in Neverland]

My mom bought me a set of 10 of the GIC stories when I was kid. I LOVED them. I read them over and over when I was little and I still have them in a box somewhere.

 

Reading them actually FOSTERED a desire to read the originals and I did for all of them. It was like it whetted my appetite. It didn't matter that I already knew the ending. Everyone knew the ship was going to sink in the end but Titanic was still the top-grossing movie of all time! :D

 

So we have many of the GIC and I let my kids read them freely and I don't feel a drop of guilt about it. They will still read the originals when they are older.

[Ester Maria]

What I'm okay with are *excerpts*, but NOT *abridged* works in sense of putting lots of excerpts in chronological order with the purpose recreating the plot of the original. Those abridged versions also often have a bad influence on the choice of excerpts in there, since they're put there with the clear intention of recreating the plot, i.e. based on a single criterion which may not even be crucial for the understanding of the work in question.

 

When I say I'm okay with excerpts, I say that I might assign (and have assigned in the past) only a specific part of a specific work, if I consider the entire work to be more suitable for some later stage of education, or if we simply don't need it in its entirety now, but want to focus on a specific part. That does NOT mean that I will, in any way, "make up" for the rest of the work or contextualize it or treat the excerpt the way I would treat the entire work, and in a lot of cases it means it's a work we will be going back to in the following years. More often than not, working with excerpts will also trigger their curiosity and they go through the book or some of its parts in their free time too.

 

Adaptations, absolutely no.

[In the Rain]

 

When I say I'm okay with excerpts, I say that I might assign (and have assigned in the past) only a specific part of a specific work, if I consider the entire work to be more suitable for some later stage of education, or if we simply don't need it in its entirety now, but want to focus on a specific part. That does NOT mean that I will, in any way, "make up" for the rest of the work or contextualize it or treat the excerpt the way I would treat the entire work, and in a lot of cases it means it's a work we will be going back to in the following years. More often than not, working with excerpts will also trigger their curiosity and they go through the book or some of its parts in their free time too.

 

This sounds kind of like WWE. :) Those excerpts have created interest in reading the original text for my 8yo dd.

 

To me, the language of the writing is as important as the plot. For most children's classics, I would prefer to have dd read the original.

[Gretchen in NJ]

I also avoid abridged books because I want my children to develop a taste for the language of real literature.

 

I think they found the 'language of real literature' missing. My girls said that they found the books dull.

[Slartibartfast]

I think some books should be available in abridged versions.

 

 

I'M LOOKING AT YOU MOBY DICK!!

 

 

Most books, nope. I wouldn't buy abridged. But some (Moby Dick) I certainly would (Moby Dick) Some authors get a bit crazy (Melville) and needed better editors. (Melville)

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sis

[Mrs Mungo]

I like abridged versions of certain books for the younger set and they can read the full one when they are older. Swiss Family Robinson definitely fits into this category, for example.

 

I think some books should be available in abridged versions.

 

 

I'M LOOKING AT YOU MOBY DICK!!

 

 

Most books, nope. I wouldn't buy abridged. But some (Moby Dick) I certainly would (Moby Dick) Some authors get a bit crazy (Melville) and needed better editors. (Melville)

 

Personally, I vote for someone to clean up and abridge some of Stephen King's later novels. Once a novelist gets too famous for an editor it becomes a real problem, imo.

[In the Rain]

I think some books should be available in abridged versions.

 

 

I'M LOOKING AT YOU MOBY DICK!!

 

 

Most books, nope. I wouldn't buy abridged. But some (Moby Dick) I certainly would (Moby Dick) Some authors get a bit crazy (Melville) and needed better editors. (Melville)

 

So, Sis, you are saying that you didn't really care for Moby Dick? ;)

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

This sounds kind of like WWE. :) Those excerpts have created interest in reading the original text for my 8yo dd.

 

To me, the language of the writing is as important as the plot. For most children's classics, I would prefer to have dd read the original.

 

what is WWE?

[LibraryLover]

I think some books should be available in abridged versions.

 

 

I'M LOOKING AT YOU MOBY DICK!!

 

 

Most books, nope. I wouldn't buy abridged. But some (Moby Dick) I certainly would (Moby Dick) Some authors get a bit crazy (Melville) and needed better editors. (Melville)

 

Oh my GAWD. That one, and Billy Budd. (Melville). Bleck!

[nrg]

I think that there are so many wonderful books written for children that there is no need to read an abridgment or an adaptation. WTM and other sources provide lists, and librarians love to recommend. I would opt for selections that mix excellent writing with interesting plots, and avoid retellings. The richness of the originals comes not only from an fine plot, but from engaging, skillful use of language, and deep themes best left for more mature readers.

[Charles Wallace]

Specifically The Great Illustrated Classics series. Give me your thoughts on letting your kids read them. Don't hold back, I want lots of opinions with your reasons!!

 

I know that as a homeschooler, a classical educator, an English teacher, I'm supposed to say something on the order of "NO, AWAAAY VILE HEEATHEN!!!"

 

But I'm not.

 

I frankly think they're a great idea. No, of course they're not getting the complex language, and of course they're not getting the complete plot. Is it the original? Oh, heck no.

 

However, think about this: A child who reads (let's say) the GIC version of Great Expectations at age 5 or 6 or whenever will walk away from that book with something pretty valuable: a holistic understanding of the plot. He'll know Pip, Estella, Joe, Mrs. Havisham, and Pip's mysterious benefactor.

 

That's not bad. Major cultural literacy points.

 

Now, let's take that same kid a little later, like 7 or 8. Maybe, having read the GIC version, he'll run into an abridged version of Great Expectations. Because he's already read the story, he knows that that convict dude in the church is actually Magwich, that Orlick is a man never to be trusted, and that it's realllllly important to pay attention to Jaggers' maidservant Molly. He won't be too thrown off by the language, the long Dickensian sentences still left in this abridged version. He'll take it in, actually, knowing the main thread of the plot.

 

Now, even later, when the kid runs into GE in high school, he's already old friends with Pip, Estella, and the rest of the homies. When he reads the real thing, he enjoys it.

 

Even if you don't progress any further than the Classics Illustrated version, you're still giving a child a basic understanding of a classic text. That's a million times more worthwhile than Junie B. Jones. Even at their most watered-down, these texts still deal with the world in an intelligent way, which is more than I can assert for many pieces of fiction meant for children.

 

In any case, that's the way it worked in our family. My DD was eager to read some fairly challenging books essentially because she'd read an easier Classics Illustrated version and really enjoyed it. It was great hearing a kid say, "Oh, wow -- Jane Eyre! I love that book!"

 

Oh, interestingly enough, I thought Nathaniel Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables was BETTER in its abridged version. Seriously. Nothing much happens in Ho7G.

[Charles Wallace]

My feelings on this topic are more pragmatic. I think they can be fine, esp if you plan to read the originals. They can be good introductions for difficult texts *for some kids*. If the child is already familiar with the story they can understand the language of the original better. "Oh, I know what this means!" can keep a child going ahead rather than tossing the book aside in confusion or frustration.

 

Fe, and don't throw tomatoes, I think the No Fear Shakespeare books can help develop a love & appreciation for young people who might be confused by old English or convinced the old guy has nothing to say to them. If they can understand that Macbeth is a really interesting story, the thees and thous and unfamiliar or dead words will not seem as daunting. (Which is why I like the movie Shakespeare in Love. It helps makes what seem irrelevant more enticing. I have wondered if there is a version for schools with the sex scene eliminated. My teens have seen it, but it's not a scene many people would want shown in schools).

 

As the only diet, no, I am not a huge fan.

 

Wow, rambling post. lol

 

I always tell my students that ANY way they can get the information in their heads is all good by me: Movie, No Fear, Sparknotes, classic comics, whatever. I know we're going to read the text in class and analyze it, so it's not like they're reading those things in lieu of the original. I'm totally fine with using any means necessary to make it more clear.

 

That said, though, I really am not going to remind my freshmen about the No Fear notes for Romeo and Juliet. Unlike our school-approved textbook, No Fear actually translates *everything* Mercutio says. The school, in its infinite wisdom, has decided Romeo and Juliet is appropriate for kids as long as they don't understand what the words mean.:001_huh:

[Charles Wallace]

I think some books should be available in abridged versions.

 

 

I'M LOOKING AT YOU MOBY DICK!!

 

 

Most books, nope. I wouldn't buy abridged. But some (Moby Dick) I certainly would (Moby Dick) Some authors get a bit crazy (Melville) and needed better editors. (Melville)

 

You didn't like all the chapters on cetology?:D

[amydavis]

I know that as a homeschooler, a classical educator, an English teacher, I'm supposed to say something on the order of "NO, AWAAAY VILE HEEATHEN!!!"

 

But I'm not.

 

I frankly think they're a great idea. No, of course they're not getting the complex language, and of course they're not getting the complete plot. Is it the original? Oh, heck no.

 

However, think about this: A child who reads (let's say) the GIC version of Great Expectations at age 5 or 6 or whenever will walk away from that book with something pretty valuable: a holistic understanding of the plot. He'll know Pip, Estella, Joe, Mrs. Havisham, and Pip's mysterious benefactor.

 

That's not bad. Major cultural literacy points.

 

Now, let's take that same kid a little later, like 7 or 8. Maybe, having read the GIC version, he'll run into an abridged version of Great Expectations. Because he's already read the story, he knows that that convict dude in the church is actually Magwich, that Orlick is a man never to be trusted, and that it's realllllly important to pay attention to Jaggers' maidservant Molly. He won't be too thrown off by the language, the long Dickensian sentences still left in this abridged version. He'll take it in, actually, knowing the main thread of the plot.

 

Now, even later, when the kid runs into GE in high school, he's already old friends with Pip, Estella, and the rest of the homies. When he reads the real thing, he enjoys it.

 

Even if you don't progress any further than the Classics Illustrated version, you're still giving a child a basic understanding of a classic text. That's a million times more worthwhile than Junie B. Jones. Even at their most watered-down, these texts still deal with the world in an intelligent way, which is more than I can assert for many pieces of fiction meant for children.

 

In any case, that's the way it worked in our family. My DD was eager to read some fairly challenging books essentially because she'd read an easier Classics Illustrated version and really enjoyed it. It was great hearing a kid say, "Oh, wow -- Jane Eyre! I love that book!

 

:iagree: This is how I feel, also. It's the point that SWB makes in TWTM about revisiting great literature in progressively more difficult formats as the child moves from the grammar stage to the logic stage, and then finally into the rhetoric stage.

[Charles Wallace]

I like abridged versions of certain books for the younger set and they can read the full one when they are older. Swiss Family Robinson definitely fits into this category, for example.

 

 

 

Personally, I vote for someone to clean up and abridge some of Stephen King's later novels. Once a novelist gets too famous for an editor it becomes a real problem, imo.

 

He should've kept the original ending of The Stand.

[Charles Wallace]

So, Sis, you are saying that you didn't really care for Moby Dick? ;)

 

I prefer the unabridged version, Moby Richard.:D

[cjzimmer1]

My kids really enjoy them. In fact,these are what really hooked my oldest in reading. He could read but was intimated by anything longer than about 30 pages. We got the Robinson Crusoe and he actually read it. He enjoyed it so much that he asked to read the full version. So at 7 or 8 (I can't remember which) he read the full 300+ page version of it. Everytime we pick up a new one my 3 oldest fight over who gets it first. The 6 year isn't "reading" them yet but she spends hours looking at the pictures and studying out the words she does know. No other books gets the attention that this series gets in our house.

[Margo out of lurking]

WTM and other sources provide lists, and librarians love to recommend.

 

One of our children's library staff is a retired elementary school teacher whose favorite recommendations are Junie B. and the Bailey Street Kids. Even when we lived in a much larger metro area, I learned early on to never ask the librarians for reading suggestions for my kids.

 

(It's an interesting dance to try to order new materials based on the Library Journal's recommendations.)

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I know that as a homeschooler, a classical educator, an English teacher, I'm supposed to say something on the order of "NO, AWAAAY VILE HEEATHEN!!!"

 

But I'm not.

 

I frankly think they're a great idea. No, of course they're not getting the complex language, and of course they're not getting the complete plot. Is it the original? Oh, heck no.

 

However, think about this: A child who reads (let's say) the GIC version of Great Expectations at age 5 or 6 or whenever will walk away from that book with something pretty valuable: a holistic understanding of the plot. He'll know Pip, Estella, Joe, Mrs. Havisham, and Pip's mysterious benefactor.

 

That's not bad. Major cultural literacy points.

 

Now, let's take that same kid a little later, like 7 or 8. Maybe, having read the GIC version, he'll run into an abridged version of Great Expectations. Because he's already read the story, he knows that that convict dude in the church is actually Magwich, that Orlick is a man never to be trusted, and that it's realllllly important to pay attention to Jaggers' maidservant Molly. He won't be too thrown off by the language, the long Dickensian sentences still left in this abridged version. He'll take it in, actually, knowing the main thread of the plot.

 

Now, even later, when the kid runs into GE in high school, he's already old friends with Pip, Estella, and the rest of the homies. When he reads the real thing, he enjoys it.

 

Even if you don't progress any further than the Classics Illustrated version, you're still giving a child a basic understanding of a classic text. That's a million times more worthwhile than Junie B. Jones. Even at their most watered-down, these texts still deal with the world in an intelligent way, which is more than I can assert for many pieces of fiction meant for children.

 

In any case, that's the way it worked in our family. My DD was eager to read some fairly challenging books essentially because she'd read an easier Classics Illustrated version and really enjoyed it. It was great hearing a kid say, "Oh, wow -- Jane Eyre! I love that book!"

 

Oh, interestingly enough, I thought Nathaniel Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables was BETTER in its abridged version. Seriously. Nothing much happens in Ho7G.

 

 

:iagree: