I know condensed books are *BAD* but...

[m0mmaBuck]

is it OK to use them to get a reluctant reader interested in the Classics? DS will read a condensed/abridged version of "Ivanhoe" but would never slog through then entire *real* book. He loves the stories of King Arthur and the Roundtable but, again, would never choose to tackle the entire novel. The real books are too long and he gets overwhelmed just looking at them. I feel like if I can get him to read short stories or condensed versions of classics he is getting introduced to the stories and may find himself interested in reading the whole enchilada at a later date. Am I really screwing this one up?

[justasque]

I would rather go with an audio version of the story. That way, he's getting the vocabulary, and the reader will use inflection etc. to help with understanding the older language. Plus you can listen together, pause when needed, draw or knit or drive or whatever during, etc. Some of that swashbuckling stuff can be really interesting on audio! We use our "car schooling" time for this kind of thing.

 

Vintage movie versions are another option in some cases - if I remember right, Elizabeth Taylor is in Ivanhoe.

[m0mmaBuck]

Here's the thing... He hates to be read to and retains little to no information from readalouds or audio books. He is a visual learner and his mind wanders any time the information is presented in an auditory fashion.

[MariannNOVA]

Similar situation here -- and I, for one, do not think I am making a mistake giving ds a condensed classic.

 

Here, it is Around the World in 80 Days. We are doing the Trail Guide unit on it and there is NO WAY my ds (almost 10) could make it through the original version. I have decided to stop doing this :banghead: and I have decided to get us into and through the material that I want him to cover as appropriately as I can.

 

Barnes and Noble has SHELVES of condensed classics -- clearly they are there for a reason.:glare:

[Sophia]

My oldest ds is currently reading Beowulf.

Had he not read the condensed version when he was younger, getting him to read the book now would be torture. As it is, I still had to tell him to quit complaining and just read the book.

My oldest dd, otoh, doesn't need the encouragement of having read a condensed version prior to tackling the classics.

My philosophy is do what will help them accomplish the task.

[i.love.lucy]

is it OK to use them to get a reluctant reader interested in the Classics? DS will read a condensed/abridged version of "Ivanhoe" but would never slog through then entire *real* book. He loves the stories of King Arthur and the Roundtable but, again, would never choose to tackle the entire novel. The real books are too long and he gets overwhelmed just looking at them. I feel like if I can get him to read short stories or condensed versions of classics he is getting introduced to the stories and may find himself interested in reading the whole enchilada at a later date. Am I really screwing this one up?

He's only 8? For Pete's Sake, yes! Let him have it for now. Better than only reading Animorphs or something! Foster that love of the classics even if you aren't fostering exactly the love of the vocabulary yet. That will come as he matures. I don't think they are "bad" at all and if you do a search on the forum for "abridged" I think you will find that many, many people support them, especially for reluctant readers.

[Legomom]

This is a question that has been driving me crazy for several years. SWB recommends a number of them in her reading lists in grades 1-4 (not sure about the other grades yet -- I haven't looked at them). Originally I was really against abridged versions BUT my kids have really enjoyed them AND have requested the originals after reading them. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is an example of this (although I think that the reading level is still probably too high for them at this point). Also, Tom Sawyer (which we are now listening to unabridged).

 

I definitely think that the abridged versions help with some of the longer more complicated books such as the Odyssey and the Iliad for future reading, but overall I still can't decide what I think about condensed books.

 

I really want to submit it as a question for Susan to answer on her Peace Hill Press youtube videos. She does a great job with those and I would love to hear her elaborate on her opinion on this.

[mommaduck]

YES! Especially at that age! Let him read the condensed or "child" versions. He might just get into the action of it that he will want to read the full version when he is older. This is how it worked with my oldest.

[LaissezFaire]

I think condensed books are actually GREAT for much younger kids to read on their own, it often fuels the fire and they desire to read the full book later on. My DD (11) abhors condensed books and says they are absolutely beneath her- which they are! This tickles me because she read hordes of condensed books as a 6-7 year old and that is why now at age 11 she is ready for the unabridged books.

[Alenee]

YES! Especially at that age! Let him read the condensed or "child" versions. He might just get into the action of it that he will want to read the full version when he is older. This is how it worked with my oldest.

 

Yes! My oldest did the same thing. We have about 30 Illustrated Classics. She hated the idea of reading until we purchased those. We told her when she began reading them that they were the shortened versions and that someday she'd want to read the REAL books. Now, I can't get her to put a book down and she prefers not to read abridged versions. She insists that I get her the 'real' books! IMO, it's fine to begin with those but not allow it to take away the appetite for the good stuff.

[Alenee]

I think condensed books are actually GREAT for much younger kids to read on their own, it often fuels the fire and they desire to read the full book later on. My DD (11) abhors condensed books and says they are absolutely beneath her- which they are! This tickles me because she read hordes of condensed books as a 6-7 year old and that is why now at age 11 she is ready for the unabridged books.

 

:lol: You posted right before me and this is *exactly* how my 11 yo is too!

[Dobela]

I am another vote for letting them read abridged versions. Even if they never read the original, the abridged gives them enough of the story line to understand many analogies in our language and referenes to the stories in other literature. The analogies can also make the original versions easier to read because the kids are familiar enough with the plot to hang in there when the reading is tough or not so enjoyable.

[Gwenhwyfar]

I am another vote for letting them read abridged versions. Even if they never read the original, the abridged gives them enough of the story line to understand many analogies in our language and referenes to the stories in other literature. The analogies can also make the original versions easier to read because the kids are familiar enough with the plot to hang in there when the reading is tough or not so enjoyable.

 

well said. :iagree:

[m0mmaBuck]

I think condensed books are actually GREAT for much younger kids to read on their own, it often fuels the fire and they desire to read the full book later on. My DD (11) abhors condensed books and says they are absolutely beneath her- which they are! This tickles me because she read hordes of condensed books as a 6-7 year old and that is why now at age 11 she is ready for the unabridged books.

 

My hope is that someday DS will want to read these great books. DH never has. But for now, I just want him to read SOMETHING!

 

I am another vote for letting them read abridged versions. Even if they never read the original, the abridged gives them enough of the story line to understand many analogies in our language and referenes to the stories in other literature. The analogies can also make the original versions easier to read because the kids are familiar enough with the plot to hang in there when the reading is tough or not so enjoyable.

 

DH has read many of the childrens' version of the classics and he does have an understanding when people reference Ishmael's whale and so on. I want DS to know about Jules Verne and H.G. Wells even if he never reads the real book. DSS has never read many of the greats (even in an abridged version) and is often lost in adult conversations when people reference the stories.

[Crissy]

Am I really screwing this one up?

 

Nope.

I was told by a number of people that giving abridged classics to my boys would ruin them as readers. The prevailing opinion was that they wouldn't be able to appreciate a well written book, and they would hate to read the original once they were older.

I disagreed and let them read as many junior classics as they wanted. Those weren't the only books they chose, but they did read a fair number.

I am happy to report that my guys are great readers at ages 11 and 16. The quality of the books they choose is impressive, and they have re-read those stories in their original, unabridged format.

 

I say go for it!

[Garga]

From what I understand, a classical education allows for children to read condensed versions during the first 2 stages, so that when they're at the rhetoric stage THEN they are finally prepared to read the original.

 

In grades 1-4, it might be a Shakespeare story with colorful pictures on some of the pages (or every page!)

 

Grades 5-8 might not have pictures, but would still be abridged.

 

9-12 would be Shakespeare as it was written.

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree with the others, they are great for younger kids to be exposed to books they will re-read later in unabridged form.

[Pippen]

Yes! My oldest did the same thing. We have about 30 Illustrated Classics. She hated the idea of reading until we purchased those. We told her when she began reading them that they were the shortened versions and that someday she'd want to read the REAL books. Now, I can't get her to put a book down and she prefers not to read abridged versions. She insists that I get her the 'real' books! IMO, it's fine to begin with those but not allow it to take away the appetite for the good stuff.

 

I spent many hours as a kid reading my mom's Reader's Digest Condensed books and it didn't scar me for life. It gave me access to books that I wouldn't have otherwise read at my age, and I did often seek out full versions down the road.